(Hljf  MnttifrHttg  of  OHitrago 

TOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


The  Normative  Use  of  Scripture  by 

Typical  Theologians  of  Protestant 

Orthodoxy  in  Great  Britain 

and  America. 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    DIVINITY    SCHOOL    IN 
CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  systematic  theology) 


BY 

CHARLES  MANFORD  SHARPE 

^1 


MEN  ASH  A,    WIS. 

THE    COLLEGIATE    PRESS 

GEORGE    BANTA    PTtbLISHING    CO. 


AUGUST  CONVOCATION 
1912 


3T  a-f 


ss 


c;> 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 
Chapter 

I.     Introduction 1 

II.     The  Orthodox  Doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  ....  7 

III.  The  Theological  Use  of  Holy  Scripture       ....  29 

IV.  Summary  and  Forecast 70 

Bibliography 76 


>      5     ',«      • 
>  ■»      - 


CHAPTER  I. 
INTRODUCTION 

This  inquiry  will  seek  to  ascertain  what  part  the  Scriptures  have 
actually  played  in  determining  the  form  and  content  of  the  several 
theological  systems  now  current  among  the  orthodox  Protestant 
communions  of  Great  Britain  and  America.  Although  it  will,  of 
course,  be  impossible  to  exhibit  in  detail  the  theological  usage  of 
Scripture  in  the  case  of  any  large  number  of  theologians,  we  shall 
try  to  make  our  selections  truly  representative  and  of  sufficient 
breadth  to  guarantee  an  adequate  induction.^ 

The  claim  is  confidently  made  that  tlie  theology  of  the  various 
orthodox  A\Titers  is  faithfully  constructed  with  reference  to  the 
formal  principle  of  Protestantism,  namely,  the  sole  authority  of 
Scripture.  It  purports  to  be  simply  the  objective  presentation  of 
the  system  of  religious  truth  contained  in  the  Bible  and  constituting 
the  Christian  revelation.  We  desire  to  know  whether  this  claim  is 
true  to  fact.     If  so,  we  wish  to  see  how  it  is  so.     If  not,  we  wish  to 

see  why  not. 

Since  the  inquiry  is  purely  historical  and  objective,  it  will  be 
well  in  the  outset  to  sketch  briefly  the  development  which  has  set  for 
us  our  problem.  In  the  beginning  of  Christian  thought  there  was, 
of  course,  no  distinctively  Christian  literature  to  serve  as  an  author- 
itative doctrinal  standard.     The  early  disciples  used  the  Old  Testa- 

'The  following  names  are  included  for  the  reasons  specified:  Doctor 
Charles  Hodge  was  the  most  influential  American  theologian  of  the  last  half 
century  representing  strict  Calvinistic  confessionalism.  Professor  Warfield 
with  greater  awareness  of  critical  and  scientific  developments  still  maintains 
the  same  general  positions.  In  his  writings  we  may  note  how  the  theory  of 
Scripture  held  by  this  strict  school  re-acts  toward  the  changed  temperature  of 
biblical  studies.  Professors  Orr  and  Denney  represent  a  Presbyterian  theol- 
ogy taking  still  further  account  of  modern  tendencies.  Orr  represents  pre- 
dominantly a  philosophical  interest,  while  Denney's  approach  is  rather  from 
the  side  of  religious  experience.  President  A.  H.  Strong  is  of  importance  on 
account  of  his  standing  among  Baptist  theologians,  and  because  of  his  at- 
tempts to  combine  intense  devotion  to  the  orthodox  tradition  with  open-minded 
hospitality  to  biblical,  scientific  and  philosophical  studies  of  the  present  day. 
The  latter  reason  applies  also  to  the  inclusion  in  our  investigation  of  Pro- 
fessors C.  M.  Mead  and  Olin  Curtis. 


2  '  THE'iTORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

ment  much  as  the  Jewish  teachers  of  the  time  used  it.  They  re- 
garded it  as  of  full  divine  authority,  not  only  for  Jews,  but  for 
Christians  as  well ;  and  they  sought  to  support  their  belief  in  Jesus 
as  Messiah  by  appeals  to  Old  Testament  Psalm  and  Prophecy. 
Their  difference  from  their  Jewish  opponents  related  not  to  the 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  to  its  interpretation.  Even 
here  the  difference  was  not  so  much  one  of  method  as  of  viewpoint. 
The  early  Christians  having  accepted  Jesus  as  Messiah,  used  this 
belief  as  a  key  to  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  while  the  Scribes  in- 
terpreted in  the  light  of  the  oral  tradition,  and  of  their  particular 
brand  of  Messianism.  In  neither  case  was  there  any  interest  in 
questions  relating  to  the  origin,  character,  and  purpose  of  the  sev- 
eral parts  or  books  of  Scripture.  No  questions  were  raised,  or  at 
least  no  considerable  ones,  regarding  the  Canon.  The  whole  body 
of  literature  was  received  simply  upon  the  authority  of  tradition, 
and  the  necessity  was  felt  of  establishing  from  Scripture  the  validity 
of  belief  and  of  practice.  The  principle  of  scriptural  authority  was 
thus  native  to  the  primitive  Christian  community  by  reason  of  its 
Jewish  origin,  even  though  it  did  not  for  some  time  possess  an 
authoritative  literature  of  its  own. 

The  church  Fathers  who  were  the  first  theologians  of  Christian- 
ity in  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  perfect  revelation  of  truth  to  be 
commended  as  such  by  appropriate  arguments  to  the  wisdom-seek- 
ing Greek  spirit,  still  further  extended  the  dogmatic  and  apologetic 
use  of  the  Scriptures.  Thus  Justin  Martyr  identifies  every  self- 
manifestation  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament  with  the  Logos.  All  the 
Fathers,  in  various  degrees,  ignore  the  historical  and  literal  sense 
of  Scripture  and  emphasize  its  hidden  or  spiritual  meaning.  The 
Allegorical  method  of  interpretation,  by  which  any  desired  sense 
could  be  extracted  from  the  words,  reigned  supreme  from  Clement 
of  Alexandria  to  Augustine,  and  the  findings  of  the  method  were 
dictated  by  the  requirements  of  church  dogmatic  in  the  form  of  the 
"rule  of  faith"  (sometimes  called  "the  rule  of  the  truth").  The 
dictum  of  Origen  that  "nothing  is  to  be  accepted  as  truth  which 
differs  in  any  respect  from  ecclesiastical  and  apostolic  tradition 
expressed  the  dominant  exegetical  attitude." 

We  may  say,  therefore,  that  the  influence  of  Scripture  upon  the 
form  and  content  of  Greek  and  Latin  theology  was  comparatively 


INTRODUCTION  6 

unimportant,  in  the  sense  of  objective  authority.  The  occasion  for 
such  a  doctrine  and  usage  of  Scripture  could  not  arise  so  long  as 
the  complete  truth  of  the  traditional  ecclesiastical  doctrine  was 
assumed  and  the  absolute  teaching  authority  of  the  Church  was 
recognized.  The  Gnostic  conflict,  indeed,  compelled  the  Church  to 
collect  and  appropriate  such  Christian  documents  as  were  held  to 
be  of  apostolic  origin  or  authority,  and  to  form  them  into  a  Christian 
Canon.  These  books  were  further  assumed  to  be  in  full  accord  with 
the  doctrinal  tradition  and  were  so  expounded  by  the  same  methods 
of  interpretation  as  had  been  applied  to  the  Old  Testament.  The 
demand  for  a  theological  norm  superior  to  the  Church  and  the 
Fathers  became  urgent  and  irrepressible  only  with  the  development 
of  the  Protestant  Reformation.  Since  they  were  antagonizing  sharp- 
ly the  authority  of  the  infallible  Church  with  regard  to  important 
practices  involving  (though  they  knew  it  not)  the  whole  scheme  of 
Church  doctrine,  the  Reformers  had  need  of  another  infallible 
authority  by  which  to  support  their  position.  This  they  found  in 
Holy  Scripture.  But,  although  the  Reformation  profited  to  a  large 
degree  by  the  scholarly  ideals  of  the  Humanist  movement,  it  was  not 
delivered  from  an  essentially  dogmatic  and  subjective  attitude  to- 
ward the  Bible.  Upon  the  one  hand,  Luther  assumed  the  doctrine 
of  Justification  by  Faith  as  the  doctrinal  center  of  Scripture  and 
used  it  as  a  critical  principle,  while  Calvin,  upon  the  other  hand, 
expounded  the  Bible  in  the  light  of  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Sover- 
eignty. The  attitude  of  Luther  regarding  the  full  doctrinal  author- 
ity of  the  Bible  was,  upon  the  whole,  wavering  and  undecided, 
while  Calvin,  upon  the  contrary,  was  an  uncompromising  advocate 
of  Scripture  infallibility. 

As  the  controversy  between  Protestantism  and  Catholicism  pro- 
gressed, and  as  polemic  strife  between  the  divisions  of  the  former 
waxed  ever  fiercer,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  was  developed  to  con- 
clusions more  and  more  extreme.  The  object  of  the  theologians 
who  constructed  the  old  Protestant  doctrine  of  Scripture  was  to 
secure  its  sole  authority  as  "Word  of  God"  over  against  the  claims 
of  the  Roman  church  for  its  tradition  and  its  teaching  function. 
These  latter  were,  by  the  Protestant  theologians,  described  as 
"Word  of  Man",  and  were  denied  any  except  a  derived  authority. 


4  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

The  sole  and  supreme  authority  of  Scripture  had  to  be  validated 
as  against  the  Roman  position  in  three  particulars,  namely, —  (1) 
that  the  Scripture  is  itself  guaranteed  by  the  Church;  (2)  that 
Church  tradition  is  an  independent  source  of  doctrine  along  with 
Scripture;  and,  (3)  that  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  correctly  inter- 
preted except  in  analogy  Avith  the  Church  doctrine.  Furthermore, 
aside  from  the  anti-Roman  polemic,  there  was  need  of  erecting  a 
doctrine  of  Scripture  against  the  fanatical  Protestant  sects  who 
claimed  an  "inner  illumination",  and  against  those  who  urged  the 
rights  of  natural  reason  in  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine.  Manifest- 
ly, nothing  could  meet  the  situation  except  a  theory  that  should  ex- 
clude the  element  of  human  activity  absolutely  from  any  share  in  the 
formation  of  Scripture;  and  should  constitute  it  in  every  part  the 
pure  "Word  of  God."  Such  a  theory  was  furnished  by  the  post- 
Reformation  doctrine  of  Inspiration,  by  which  the  whole  literature 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  was  referred  directly  to  the  super- 
natural agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  its  character  as  a  divine 
revelation  of  truth  was  guaranteed.  The  Holy  Spirit  was  affirmed 
to  impart  to  the  biblical  writers  not  only  the  substance  of  truth,  but 
also  the  very  words,  and  the  actual  impulse  to  write.  As  against 
the  Roman  claim  that  the  Church  guarantees  the  Scriptures  in  that 
it  collected  the  books  and  promulgated  the  canon,  it  was  replied 
that  no  such  authentication  would  be  sufficient,  but  that  God  Him- 
self must  and  does  witness  to  His  Word  by  and  with  the  presence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  believers.  In  reply  to  the  as- 
sertion that  the  Church  doctrine  supplements  the  teaching  of 
Scripture,  the  Protestant  theologians  affirmed  the  sufficiency  of 
Scripture  for  all  knowledge  necessary  to  salvation.  The  need  of 
the  Church  dogma  as  a  key  to  interpretation  was  denied  in  favor 
of  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture,  by  which  was  meant  primarily  its 
self-interpreting  quality  for  religious  and  doctrinal  purposes.  This 
doctrine,  it  was,  which  led  to  strong  emphasis  upon  certain  por- 
tions of  Scripture,  and  certain  proof-texts  as  the  clear  outlines  of 
doctrine  and  positive  statements  of  truth  in  the  light  of  which  all 
obscurer  passages  were  to  be  understood.- 

^  For  a  good  account  of  the  various  methods  of  interpretation  employed  in 
the  successive  periods  of  Christianity  see  series  of  articles  in  the  Biblical  World, 
Vol.  38  by  Case,  Gilbert  and  Smith. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  merits  and  demerits  of  this  Inspiration  doctrine  with  the 
theory  of  Scripture  which  it  involves,  do  not  claim  consideration 
here.  Suffice  it  to  say  it  has  been  shown  to  be  psychologically  im- 
possible, and  out  of  all  accord  with  the  facts  as  they  appear  in  the 
biblical  literature  itself.  It  has,  therefore,  been  gradually  dis- 
solved, and  the  Scriptures  have  been  reduced  to  the  plane  of  histor- 
ical phenomena  in  which  human  activity  has  had  a  large  part  to 
play,  and  in  the  understanding  of  which  strict  historical  methods  of 
study  must  be  employed.  To  this  result  the  sciences  of  Textual 
Criticism,  Introduction,  and  Biblical  Theology  have  mainly  con- 
tributed. It  has  always  been  known  that  we  have  not  the  original 
autographs  of  the  Scripture  documents,  which,  upon  the  hypothesis 
of  the  defenders  of  inerrancy,  would  exhibit  that  perfection  and  in- 
fallibility claimed.  Textual  Criticism  while  making  clear  the  dis- 
crepancies that  exist  among  the  Mss.  we  have,  also  shows  that  the 
further  back  we  press  the  less  do  we  find  conditions  in  the  text  that 
answer  to  the  demands  of  the  theory.^*  The  science  of  Introduction 
has  shown  how  intimately  the  biblical  books  are  related  to  the  his- 
torical conditions  of  their  origin,  and  has  made  impossible  the  sharp 
separation  of  these  documents  from  other  historical  sources  of 
knowledge.  Biblical  Theology  has  thrown  into  prominence  the 
variety  of  the  doctrinal  contents  of  Scripture,  and  has  raised  the 
question  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  that  unity  which  has  been 
alleged  or  may  be  supposed  to  underlie  the  diversity.  As  a  result 
of  these  discoveries,  Protestant  theology  resting  as  it  has  done  upon 
a  view  of  the  Scriptures  now  found  to  be  untenable  in  the  form  it 
has  been  held,  finds  itself  in  a  condition  of  confusion  and  distress. 

Yet,  as  we  have  said,  the  school  of  theologians  under  considera- 
tion, still  maintains  the  normativity  of  Scripture  in  theological  con- 
struction, and  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  treatise  to  note  the  nature, 
extent  and  results  of  such  theory  and  practice. 

Inasmuch  as  all  Christian  theology,  orthodox  or  heretical,  con- 
servative or  radical  must  in  some  sense  appeal  to  Scripture,  it  is 
necessary  to  define  more  precisely  the  school  of  theological  opinion 
which  is  the  subject  of  this  investigation.  The  writer  is  aware  that 
in  his  title  he  has  adopted  an  arbitrary  conception  of  Orthodoxy, 
and  one,  indeed,  to  which  he  would  be  slow  to  yield  assent.  But 
this  is  what  he  means.     The  orthodox  theologian  is  one  who  holds 

=  Cf.  Evans  and  Smith,  Biblical  Scholarship  and  Inspiration,  pp.  37,  38. 


6  THE  NORMATIVE   USE   OF   SCRIPTURE 

to  the  notion  of  Christianity  as  essentially  and  necessarily  consist- 
ing in  an  objective  system  of  truth  delivered  to  the  human  mind  by 
special  and  supernatural  revelation,  and  recorded  or  preserved  in 
the  Bible.  This  system  of  divine  truth  thus  given  is  regarded  as 
a  fixed  quantum,  to  be  received,  assimilated  and  applied  to  life  in 
order  to  a  full  and  characteristic  Christian  experience,  and  in  order 
to  the  complete  results  purposed  by  God  in  giving  it. 

The  order  of  treatment  will  be  as  follows:  First,  we  mil  seek 
to  discover  and  define  each  theologian's  doctrine  of  Scripture  as  he 
consciously  holds  it.  Under  this  head  will  fall  to  be  considered  such 
notions  as  Revelation,  Inspiration,  and  the  Unity  of  Scripture  as  a 
whole.  Second,  we  will  point  out  in  the  case  of  our  several  authors 
their  religious,  dogmatic,  or  speculative  interests,  and  show  how  these 
operate  in  the  theological  use  of  the  Scriptures,  particularly  in  in- 
terpretation and  in  emphasis  placed  upon  definite  portions  of 
Scripture.  Third,  we  will  tabulate  the  results  that  appear  from 
our  whole  survey.  Fourth,  and  finally,  we  will  indicate  in  what 
direction  our  results  seem  to  point  as  regards  the  relation  the 
Scriptures  may  sustain  toward  present  theological  science  in  order 
to  impart  to  it  that  moral  and  spiritual  power  which  has  ever 
characterized  the  Christian  religion  itself. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ORTHODOX  DOCTRINE  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

It  is,  as  we  have  already  stated,  the  fundamental  postulate  of 
our  school  of  theologians,  that  God  has  given  a  special  and  super- 
natural revelation  of  truth  to  the  world  upon  the  understanding  and 
acceptance  of  which  true  and  adequate  religion  can  alone  rest.  This 
revelation  is  closely  associated  with  the  Bible,  and  only  concerning 
the  exact  nature  and  content  of  the  revelation,  and  the  exact  rela- 
tion sustained  to  it  by  the  Bible  as  a  whole  do  we  find  varieties  of 
opinion. 

There  is,  first  of  all,  the  view  which  lies  nearest  the  strict  post- 
Reformation  doctrine,  and  which  virtually  identifies  revelation  and 
Scripture.  This  position  was  represented  by  Doctor  Charles  Hodge 
and  has  since  been  defended  in  all  essential  respects  by  the  Prince- 
ton school.  According  to  Doctor  Hodge  the  Bible  consists  of  a  reve- 
lation of  facts  and  truths,  which,  taken  in  their  entirety,  properly 
related  and  interpreted,  constitute  one  system  of  divine  truth. ^ 
In  virtue  of  its  character  as  the  exhaustive  expression  of  truth  and 
fact  necessary  to  the  complete  exliibition  of  the  Christian  religion 
the  Bible  becomes  the  exclusive  source  and  norm  of  theology  as  a 
science.  But  just  as  Nature  does  not  contain  a  system  of  Astron- 
omy, or  Chemistry  but  only  the  undigested  facts  which  science  must 
arrange  and  relate ;  so  the  Bible  contains  no  system  of  Theology  in 
explicit  form,  but  only  the  facts  and  truths  which,  when  they  are 
properly  apprehended  and  understood  will  be  found  to  cohere  in  one 
harmonious  whole.  This  system  of  revealed  truth  in  its  organic 
unity,  it  is  the  task  of  theology  to  discover,  set  forth  and  vindicate.^ 

In  this  connection,  however,  a  little  inconsistently,  it  would 
seem.  Doctor  Hodge  points  out  an  advantage  which  the  theologian 

has  over  the  student  of  Nature  when  he  says, "although 

the  Scriptures  do  not  contain  a  system  of  theology  as  a  whole,  we 
have  in  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  portions  of  that  system 
wrought  out  to  our  hand.     These  are  our  authority  and  guide.  "^ 

^  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1,  2,  13. 
*  Ibid,  p.  3. 
'Op.  cit.,  p.  3. 


8  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

In  the  view  of  this  theologian  so  close  is  the  relation  between 
revelation  and  Scripture  that  there  is  no  revelation  external  to  the 
Bible  that  can  materially  concern  theology.  Upon  the  one  hand, 
the  Bible  contains  all  the  facts  with  which  theology  deals,  and  upon 
the  other  hand  theology  must  deal  with  all  the  facts  the  Bible  con- 
tains. There  must  be  a  careful,  comprehensive  and,  if  possible,  even 
an  exhaustive  induction  of  Scripture  facts.  Then  the  complete 
doctrine  or  system  must  be  so  framed  as  to  "  embrace  all  the  facts 

in  their  integrity."^     "It  is unscientific   for   the 

theologian  to  assume  a  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  virtue,  of  sin,  of 
liberty,  of  moral  obligation,  and  then  explain  the  facts  of  Scripture 

in  accordance  with  his  theories" "If  the  Scriptures 

teach  that  sin  is  hereditary  we  must  adopt  a  theory  of  sin  suited  to 
that  fact.  "^ 

The  final  outcome  of  Doctor  Hodge's  view  is  that  there  is  and 
can  be  but  one  legitimate  system  of  theology  which  is,  according  to 
his  conviction,  the  Augustinian  system.  ' '  As  the  facts  of  Astronomy 
arrange  themselves  in  a  certain  order,  and  will  admit  of  no  other, 
so  it  is  with  the  facts  of  theology.  Theology  is,  therefore,  the  ex- 
hibition of  the  facts  of  Scripture  in  their  proper  order  and  relation, 
with  the  principles  or  general  truths  involved  in  the  facts  them- 
selves, and  which  pervade  and  harmonize  the  whole."*' 

Quite  in  accord  with  these  statements  of  Doctor  Hodge  are  the 
views  of  the  Princeton  theologians  of  more  recent  times.  Professor 
Benjamin  B.  Warfield,  for  example,  describes  himself  as  "one  who 
has  in  all  sincerity  and  heartiness  set  his  hand  to  these  (the 
Westminster)  Standards  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 

in   Holy  scripture."^     "It  would   be   easy   to  show how 

strictly  they  (the  Standards)   are  held  in  every  definition  to  the 
purity  of  biblical  conceptions  and  enunciations  of  truth.  "^ 

The  essence  of  Christianity  is  held  to  be  constituted,  not  by 
eventual  facts  but  by  "the  dogmas,  i.  e.  by  the  facts  as  understood 
in  one  specific  manner."  "There  lies  at  the  basis  of  Christianity  not 

*  Ibid,  p.  13. 

'Ibid,  pp.   13,   14. 

"  Ibid,  p.  19. 

'  The  Significance  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  p.  1. 

« Ibid,  p.  35. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  9 

only  a  series  of  great  redemptive  facts,  but  also  an  authoritative 
interpretation  of  these  facts.  Amid  the,  perhaps,  many  interpre- 
tations possible  to  this  series  of  facts,  who  will  help  us  to  that  one 
through  which  alone  they  can  constitute  Christianity?'"'  "The 
Apostolic  interpretation  is  an  inseparable  element  in  the  fun- 
damental fact  basis  of  Christianity Call  it  metaphysical, 

call  it  Greek  if  you  will.  But  remember  that  it  is  of  the  essence  of 
Christianity. '  '^^ 

To  the  same  general  effect  writes  President  A.  H.  Strong  regard- 
ing the  character  of  the  Bible  as  a  revelation  of  doctrinal  truth  and 
as  constituting  the  objective  standard  of  appeal  in  theology,"  al- 
though, as  we  shall  see  later,  he  tries  to  escape  from  mere  biblicism 
by  means  of  his  Christo-centric  principle.  "Theology,"  he  says, 
"is  a  summary  and  explanation  of  the  content  of  God's  self -revela- 
tions. These  are,  first,  the  revelation  of  God  in  Nature;  secondly, 
and  supremely,  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  Scriptures."  "Reve- 
lation is  an  organic  whole  which  begins  in  nature  but  finds  its  climax 
and  key  in  the  historical  Christ  whom  Scripture  presents  to  us." 
"The  phrase,  'Word  of  God'  does  not  primarily  denote  a  record, 
it  is  the  spoken  word,  the  doctrine,  the  vitalizing  truth  disclosed  by 
Christ.  "^2 

President  Strong  reproduces  in  almost  identical  terms  the  af- 
firmation already  cited  from  Doctor  Hodge  with  reference  to  parts 
of  the  system  of  doctrine  wrought  out  in  the  Epistles  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  constituting  the  center  of  the  complete  system  of 
divine  truth  which  is  implicit  in  the  whole  of  Scripture.^^  Likewise 
in  agreement  with  Doctor  Hodge,  he  urges  upon  Christians  the  obli- 
gation to  receive  the  biblical  doctrines  as  revealed  facts  whether  they 
can  be  demonstrated  upon  rational  grounds  or  not,  or  whether  or 
no  it  be  possible  to  see  the  connection  between  them.^* 

Somewhat  different  is  the  emphasis  of  Professor  James  Orr. 
More  conscious  than  many  of  his  orthodox  colleagues  of  the  critical 

*The  Right  of  Systematic  Theology,  pp.  38,  39. 

^^  Ibid,  pp.  61,  62.    Vide  quotation  from  Denney  p.  67  of  this  treatise. 

"Strong,  Systematic  Theology,  Vol,  I,  pp.  27,  28. 

"  Ibid,  pp.  25,  26,  27. 

"  Ibid,  p,  15. 
"  Ibid,  p.  36. 


10  THE   NORMATIVE   USE   OF   SCRIPTURE 

and  scientific  difficulties  that  attend  the  maintenance  of  the  usual 
Protestant  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture,  he  seeks  to  ground  its 
authority  in  a  religio-historical  \dew  of  revelation,  rather  than  in 
what  he  calls  a  "doctrinaire  view."  In  his  Elliot  Lectures,  de- 
livered in  1897  Professor  Orr  said  that  "A  doctrine  of  Scripture 
adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  hour  in  harmonizing  the  demands  at 
once  of  Science  and  Faith,  is,  perhaps,  the  most  clamant  want  at 
present  in  theology.  "^^ 

Such  a  doctrine  he  endeavors  to  state  in  his  recent  volume  en- 
titled "Revelation  and  Inspiration"  (Scribners  1910)  from  which 
we  shall  quote  repeatedly  in  this  discussion.  Briefly  stated  his  view 
is  as  follows : 

The  Bible  possesses  in  remarkable  degree  a  structural  unity 
which  is  due  to  the  presence  in  it  and  running  through  it  of  God's 
progressive  self-revelation.  This  revelation  is  what  we  speak  of 
as  the  Gospel,  and  this,  criticism  can  never  expunge  from  the  Bible. 
It  forms  a  ' '  continuous,  coherent,  self -attesting  discovery  to  man  of 
the  mind  of  God  regarding  man  himself,  his  sin,  the  guilt  and  ruin 
into  which  sin  has  plunged  him,  and  over  against  that  the  method  of 
a  divine  salvation,  the  outcome  of  a  purpose  of  eternal  love,  wrought 
out  in  ages  of  progressive  revelation,  and  culminating  in  the  mis- 
sion, life,  death,  atoning  work,  and  resurrection  of  His  Son  Jesus 
Christ,  and  in  the  gift  of  His  Spirit  to  the  Church  and  believers.  "^^ 
This  Gospel  in  the  Bible  will  preserve  the  Bible  which  embodies  it, 
and  will  attest  the  Scriptures  as  what  ' '  they  claim  to  be,  the  living 
and  inspired  oracles  of  God.  "^^  "  The  Christian  believer  is,  there- 
fore, not  anxious  about  the  supposed  destructive  results  of  Criticism. 
Its  excesses  will  ever  be  blocked  and  checked  by  the  presence  of  this 
evangelical  element  which  runs  continuously  throughout  Scrip- 
ture." "Accepting  a  supernatural  economy  of  grace  as  the  central 
fact  of  revelation,  it  (this  view)  will  not  be  trammeled  by  the  a 
priori  presumptions  about  miracle  which  are  apt  to  vitiate  purely 
critical  theories.  For  miracle  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the  economy. 
It  is  able  to  take  up  firmer  ground  on  historicity,  for  it  sees  the 
meaning  and  place  of  the  great  facts  in  the  biblical  history,  as  other 

^  The  Progress  of  Dogma,  p.  352. 
"  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  18. 
"  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  19. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  1  1 

theories  do  not.  It  recognizes  a  line  of  divine  revelation  extending 
through  all  time.  It  is,  therefore,  prepared  to  accept  the  fact  of  a 
record  of  such  special,  continuous,  supernatural  revelation.  "^^ 

This  view  Professor  Orr  describes  as  Evangelical-Positive,  and 
considei-s  it  to  exhibit  an  advance  in  several  points  upon  the  older 
positions.  "Instead  of  revelation  being  regarded  as  consisting 
simply  or  exclusively  of  the  communicatioh  of  truths  or  ideas 
through  internal  suggestion,  illumination,  or  intuition — the  doc- 
trinaire view  of  revelation,  as  the  late  Professor  A.  B.  Bruce  called 
it_its  essence  is  seen  to  lie,  primarily,  in  a  series  of  divine  acts ; 
God  manifesting  Himself  in  the  history  of  the  world  in  a  super- 
natural manner  and  for  a  special  purpose.  "^^ 

"It  is  an  important  advance  when,  in  accordance  with  the  bib- 
lical conception  itself,  the  stress  is  shifted  back,  even  from  pro- 
phetic and  apostolic  teaching  to  the  divine  acts  which  stand  behind 
both  "20 

But  the  principle  advance  in  this  way  of  treating  the  subject 
Professor  Orr  regards  as  the  more  accurate  discrimination  of  the 
related  ideas  of  Revelation  and  Inspiration.  What  he  conceives  this 
gain  to  be,  and  what  results  flow  from  it  we  shall  see  later.  At 
present  we  are  concerned  to  know  just  what  the  gain  is  in  trans- 
ferring the  conception  of  revelation  from  doctrine  (teaching)  to 
act  (history).  Professor  Orr  has  hardly  made  the  distinction  until 
we  find  him  busy  bringing  back  under  the  head  of  an  extension 
of  the  idea  of  Revelation  practically  all  that  was  included  in 
the  older  theory  he  considers  to  be  transcended.  He  tells  us 
that  "it  is  not  simply  the  history  of  revelation  on  its  divine 
side  which  is  of  spiritual  interest,  but  the  human  reception  also 
of  that  revelation,  and  the  actings  of  the  human  spirit  under 
its  influence,  and  in  response  to  it,  which  are  to  be  taken  into 
account.      This  also  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  unfolding  of  the 

meaning  of  revelation   (italics  mine) a  record  of 

revelation  in  the  broad  sense  includes  a  great  deal  more  than 
the  divine  acts  and  communications,  or  even  than  the  history 
■with  which  we  began.     It  includes  psalms,  songs,  wisdom  teaching, 

i»  Ibid,  pp.  20,  21. 
"  Ibid,  pp.  21,  22. 
'°  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  22. 


12  THE   NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

Epistles sections  that  unfold  the  principles  of  reve- 
lation, apply  and  enforce  them,  turn  them  into  subjects  of  praise, 
deal  with  them  reflectively  as  doctrine.     All  this  is  too,  in  a  very 

important  sense,  revelation" "We  have  now  found 

that  the  line  between  revelation  and  its  record  is  becoming  very  thin, 
and  that  in  another  true  sense,  the  record  in  the  fulness  of  its 

content,  is  for  us  itself  the  revelation God's  complete 

word —  for  us"^^ 

It  is  difficult  to  see,  upon  this  showing,  wherein  Professor  Orr 
has  lightened  the  load  theology  had  to  bear  upon  the  premises  of  the 
older  "doctrinaire"  theory  of  revelation.  Practically  all  the  dif- 
ficulties that  beset  the  latter  are,  in  a  slightly  different  form,  trans- 
ferred to  the  historical  field.  Professor  Orr  must  maintain  the  sub- 
stantial historicity  of  the  whole  biblical  representation,  in  its  parts 
and  in  its  ensemble.  Furthermore,  he  must  maintain,  as  he  does, 
that  there  is  a  doctrinal  development  in  Scripture  correctly  and  ad- 
equately interpreting  the  revelation  essentially  contained  in  the 
divine  acts  and  communications.  "A  like  organic  unity,  combined 
with  progressive  development,  it  might  be  shown,  reveals  itself  in 
doctrine.  While  throwing  off,  or  suffering  to  fall  into  the  back- 
ground what  is  accidental  or  temporary,  each  stage  in  the  advance 
of  revelation  takes  up  what  is  vital  and  permanent  in  the  preceding 
stage.  No  single  grain  of  the  word  of  God  'wliich  liveth  and  abid- 
eth'  is  allowed  to  perish  in  the  process."" 

Although  he  claims  to  have  transcended  the  "doctrinaire  theory" 
of  revelation  Professor  Orr  would  seem  to  hold  to  the  essentially 
doctrinal  nature  of  Christianity  almost  as  strongly  as  Professor 
Warfield  or  Doctor  Hodge.  Replying  to  the  statement  that  Chris- 
tianity is  a  "fact  revelation — it  has  its  center  in  a  living  Christ,  and 
not  in  a  dogmatic  creed,"  he  writes,  "The  facts  of  revelation  are 
before  the  doctrines  built  on  them.  The  gospel  is  no  mere  procla- 
mation of  'eternal  truths',  but  the  discovery  of  a  saving  purpose  of 
God  for  mankind,  executed  in  Time.  But  the  doctrines  are  the 
interpretation  of  the  facts.  The  facts  do  not  stand  blank  and  dumb 
before  us,  but  have  a  voice  given  to  them,  and  a  meaning  put  into 
them"  (italics  mine).     When  Paul  affirms,  "Christ  died  for  our 

»  Ibid,  pp.  158,  159. 

"  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  17. 


THE  ORTHODOX  DOCTRINE  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE         13 

sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  he  is  proclaiming  a  fact,  but  he 
is  at  the  same  time  giving  an  interpretation  of  it."-^ 

Undoubtedly  Professor  Orr  regards  the  Bible  as  containing  an 
organism  of  doctrinal  truth  no  less  intimate  and  vital  to  Christianity 
than  the  coherent,  continuous  series  of  historical  acts  in  which  reve- 
lation is  alleged  primarily  to  consist.  What  this  organism  is  he  has 
set  forth  exhaustively  in  his  Kerr  Lectures,  under  the  title,  "The 
Christian  View  of  God  and  the  "World" — a  volume  which  will 
claim  our  attention  later. 

The  point  that  more  particularly  concerns  us  here  is  that  our 
theologian  has  bound  up,  practically  the  whole  traditional  theology 
with  the  Redemption  History,  as  he  calls  it,  and  has  identified  it 
with  the  Gospel.  Hence  proceeds  his  resistance  of  Criticism  at 
every  point  involving  historical  reconstruction.  In  this  respect  Doc- 
tor Orr  seems  to  have  experienced  a  change  of  conviction  since  the 
deliverance  of  his  Kerr  Lectures  in  1890-91.  He  then  declared  that 
the  critical  re-dating  of  the  Old  Testament  documents  does  not  af- 
fect the  argument  for  the  revelation  character  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment religion.  "The  Biblical  conception  is  separated  from  every 
other  by  its  monotheistic  basis,  its  unique  clearness,  its  organic 
unity,  its  moral  character  and  its  theological  aim.  It  does  not  mat- 
ter for  this  argument  what  dates  we  assign  to  the  books  of  the  Old 

Testament  in  which  these  views  are  found Date  your 

books  when  you  will  this  religion  is  not  explicable  save  on  the 
hypothesis  of  Revelation."-*  But  in  1910  he  complains  that  upon 
the  critical  basis  the  history  undergoes  complete  transformation, 
so  that  the  order  of  events  as  gleaned  from  the  Bible  itself  is  re- 
versed. Upon  this  state  of  matters  he  remarks,  "It  need  not  oc- 
casion surprise  if  this  critical  view  of  Israel's  history  is  felt  by 
many,  by  no  means  narrow-minded,  to  be  well-nigh  fatal  to  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  a  record  of  a  real  divine  revela- 
tion. .  .  .  .  It  is  not  on  such  a  basis  that  the  present  writer 
can  undertake  to  defend  the  reality  of  revelation  and  inspiration  in 
the  Old  Testament.""^'"     (italics  mine) 

=*  The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  pp.  '25,  26,  So.  Warfield,  and 
Denney,  Studies  in  TheoL,  pp.   106-107. 
^  CVGW,  p.  17. 
^  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  71. 


14  THE  NORMATIVE  USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

This  seems  clear  and  emphatic  and  yet  elsewhere  in  the  same 
volume  our  author  claims  to  regard  it  as  one  of  the  important  gains 
from  the  critical  movement  that  application  of  the  strictest  his- 
torical and  critical  methods  has  only  served  to  show  the  absolutely 
unique  and  extraordinary  character  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  ' '  The 
further  inquiry  has  gone,  the  tendency  has  increasingly  been  to 
force  from  the  lips  of  the  critics  themselves  the  word  'reve- 
lation.'"-« 

It  seems  difficult  to  harmonize  these  two  statements  in  the  later 
volume,  or  the  first  of  them  with  that  cited  from  the  former.  It 
would  seem  to  be  safe  to  defend  the  reality  of  Old  Testament  revela- 
tion upon  the  basis  of  methods  and  results  which  are  so  beneficent 
in  the  case  of  those  who  specially  cultivate  them.  But  the  nature 
and  content  of  the  revelation  which  Professor  Orr  understands  some 
critics  to  admit,  does  not  accord  with  the  nature  and  content  of 
that  which  he  himself  is  set  to  defend. 

The  critical  reconstruction  of  the  history  can  hardly  be  opposed 
successfully  if  the  critical  dating  of  the  documents  be  allowed. 
Hence  Professor  Orr  has  argued  strongly  upon  critical  and  archae- 
ological grounds  against  the  prevailing  view,  but  as  is  clearly  evi- 
dent in  the  volume  so  often  cited,  his  main  reliance  is  upon  a  religio- 
dogmatic  presupposition.  In  illustration  of  this  the  following 
lengthy  passage  is  worth  quoting.     "The  general  trustworthiness 

of  the  history is,  apart  from  other  reasons,  believed 

to  be  internally  guaranteed  by  the  depth  and  organic  character — 
the  forward  movement  under  the  direction  of  a  divine  purpose — of 
the  ideas  embodied  in  it.  Here,  on  the  surface  of  the  record,  is 
something  which  it  lies  beyond  the  capacity  of  irresponsible  editors 
or  collectors  of  legends,  or  even  of  late  prophetically  minded  men, 
to  invent  or  introduce  into  the  substance  of  a  national  folk-lore  .  . 
.  .  .  For  any  one  taking  this  view  of  the  history,  it  will  be 
found  difficult  to  believe  that  the  patriarchs  are  the  wholly  mythical 
or  legendary  figures  many  would  make  them  out  to  be,  or  that  the 
covenants  and  promises  of  that  early  age  were  unreal.  It  will  be 
found  difficult  to  believe  that  Moses  was  not  divinely  raised  up  and 
commissioned,  and  did  not,  by  divine  command  lead  the  enslaved 
Israelites  out  of  Egypt  and  across  the  Red  Sea,  to  form  at  Sinai  a 

=*  Ibid,  pp.  13,  14. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OP   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  15 

religious  covenant  between  them  and  Jehovah  which  pledged  them 
ever  after  to  be  His  people.  It  will  be  found  difficult  to  believe  that 
Moses  did  not  then  and  after  give  to  the  people  laws  and  ordin- 
ances  both  civil  and  priestly  in  substance  identical  with  those  in 

the  books  which  record  his  legislation and  so  with 

the  remainder  of  the  history."-^ 

Professor  Orr  has  used  the  cautious  phrase,  "it  will  be  difficult", 
but  in  his  own  case  he  has  practically  said  it  is  impossible  not  to 
accept  substantially  the  whole  traditional  view  of  the  biblical  his- 
tory. But  while  he  has  ostensibly  thrown  the  whole  question  into 
the  field  of  historical  fact,  it  is  manifest  that  he  proposes  to  settle  it, 
in  the  last  resort,  by  other  than  historical  means.  As  the  basis  of 
his  whole  contention  he  affirms  the  presence  in  and  throughout  the 
Bible  of  what  he  calls  "a  self -attesting,  coherent  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion" constituting  divine  revelation  and  guaranteeing  the  veridical 
character  of  every  historical  matter  purporting  to  be  involved  there- 
with. It  is  in  line  with  this  that  Professor  Orr  is  reluctant  to  admit 
that  the  book  of  Jonah  is  a  work  of  religious  fiction,  or  that  there 
is  any  considerable  amount  of  legendary  material  in  the  accounts  of 
the  Patriarchal  or  Mosaic  periods. 

With  some  rather  important  qualifications,  we  may  include, 
along  with  Professor  Orr's  view,  that  of  Professor  James  Denney. 
He  holds  that  the  religious  and  moral  power  of  the  gospel  within  the 
Scriptures  attest  their  character  as  revelation  documents  prior  to 
and  independent  of  any  theory  of  inspiration.  It  is  the  presence  of 
this  gospel  certified  by  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart 
of  the  believer,  that  assures  him  of  God's  voice  in  Holy  Scripture, 
and  it  is  this  gospel,  thus  certified,  that  determines  for  him  what 
view  he  is  able,  inclined  or  necessitated  to  take  with  reference  to  the 
critical  questions  raised  concerning  the  various  distinctive  parts  of 

the  Bible. 

"The  Bible  is,  in  the  first  instance,  a  means  of  grace:  it  is  the 
means  too  through  which  God  communicates  with  man,  making  him 
know  what  is  in  his  heart  towards  him.  It  must  be  known  and  ex- 
perienced in  this  character  before  we  can  form  a  doctrine  concern- 
ing it."=^« 

="  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  pp.  72,  73. 
^  Studies  in  Theology,  p.  202. 


16  THE   NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

''The  expression  'Word  of  God'  relates  to  the  divine  message 
to  man  and  is  not  to  be  construed  as  if  it  were  a  doctrine  of  the 
text  of  Scripture,  or  as  covering  not  only  certain  assumed  qual- 
ities of  Scripture  as  we  have  it,  but  also  certain  alleged  qualities 
of  an  original  autograph  of  Scripture  which  no  one  knows  anything 
about.  "29 

The  most  important  difference  between  the  positions  of  Orr  and 
Denney  relates  to  the  content  of  the  gospel  which  constitutes  the 
divine  revelation,  and  which  by  its  presence  attests  the  Bible  as  its 
authentic  record.  As  we  have  seen,  Orr  includes  the  whole  pro- 
gressive self-revelation  of  God  in  His  redemptive  plan  and  purpose 
from  the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis  to  the  conclusion  of  the  apos- 
tolic interpretation  in  the  New  Testament.  Professor  Denney,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  a  more  strictly  experimental  and  Christo-centric 
position.  The  limits  within  which  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  the 
Scriptures  is  held  to  guarantee  historical  truth  are  by  him  reduced 
to  one  point,  viz.,  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ.  Thus  he  is 
able  to  view  the  findings  of  historical  criticism  with  much  less  con- 
cern than  Orr,  and  to  admit  the  presence  of  myth  and  legend  to 
a  degree  the  latter  cannot.  "We  do  not  need  to  become  historical 
critics  before  we  can  believe  in  Christ  and  be  saved  by  him.  The 
Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  of  the  evangelists 
in  our  hearts,  gives  us,  independent  of  any  criticism,  a  full  per- 
suasion and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority 
of  the  revelation  of  God  made  in  Him.  And  if  any  one  still  main- 
tains that  this  does  forestall  criticism,  I  should  say  that  the  very 
meaning  of  the  Incarnation,  the  truth  on  which  all  Christianity 
depends,  is  precisely  this,  that  there  is  a  point,  viz.,  the  life  of 
The  Son  of  God  in  our  nature,  at  which  the  spiritual  and  the  histor- 
ical coincide  and  at  which,  therefore,  as  the  very  purpose  of  revela- 
tion  requires,  there  can  be  a  spiritual  guarantee  for  historical 
truth.  The  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  the  believer  enables  him  to 
take,  not  only  de  facto  but  de  jure,  the  life  of  Christ  recorded  in 
the  gospels  as  a  real  historical  life."'°  "The  gospels  have  every 
quality  which  they  need,  to  put  us  in  contact  with  the  gospel ;  they 
do  put  us  in  contact  with  it,  and  the  Spirit  makes  it  sure  to  our 

=»  Ibid,  p.  205. 

8°  studies  in  Theology,  p.  20T. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  17 

faith;  why  should  we  ask  more  from  them."='^  Secure  in  this  posi- 
tion of  faith  with  its  sufficient  implication  of  historical  verity  Pro- 
fessor Denney  allows  the  largest  freedom  to  Christian  men  in  criti- 
cal details  of  the  evangelistic  record.  "Though  in  any  number  of 
cases  of  this  kind  the  gospels  should  be  proved  in  error,  the  gospel 
is  untouched.  "^^ 

Having  thus  established  himself  in  the  gospel  Professor  Denney 
proceeds  to  base  the  authority  of  all  Scripture,  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  apostolic  interpretation  upon  the  authority  of  Jesus  and 
the  Spirit's  testimony  in  the  heart  of  the  believer.  How  far  this 
authenticates  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole  either  in  its  doctrines 
or  in  its  historical  accounts  will  appear  from  the  following  citations. 

"Jesus  used  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 

as  a  means  of  fellowship  with  his  Father  in  Heaven we 

can  point  to  express  words  of  Jesus  in  which  the  authority  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  recognized,  and  even  used  in  argument  with  the 

Jews Sayings  like  these  assure  us  that  Jesus,  at  all 

events,  found  in  the  Scriptures  a  true  revelation  of  God ;  as  he  read, 

the  Father  spoke  to  him If  it  is  too  much  to  say  that 

His  coming  and  His  work  are  clearly  predicted  in  them,  it  is  not 

too  much  to  say  that  they  are  clearly  pre-figured In 

other  words,  the  Old  Testament  is  vitally  and  not  only  casually  and 

chronologically  connected  with  the  New the  early 

Christians  used  it  without  embarrassment  as  a  Christian  book. 
When  they  quote  from  it  they  always  quote  in  a  Christian  sense.  .  . 
.  It  is  possible  to  err  in  detail,  if  we  read  the  Old  Testament 
in  this  way;  it  may  even  he  possible  to  err  hi  every  detail  and  yet 
not  err  on  the  wJiole.  For  it  is  the  same  Word  of  God  which  be- 
came incarnate  in  Jesus  that  speaks  to  the  heart  in  the  ancient 
Scriptures. '  '^^     ( Italics  mine ) 

This  extensive  quotation  is  given  in  order  to  bring  out  strongly 
the  contrast  between  the  doctrine  of  Denney  and  that  of  Orr. 
According  to  the  latter  the  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament  (and 
the  New  as  well)  is  contained  primarily  in  the  history,  and  to  mis- 
understand or  falsify  the  history  is  to  miss  the  revelation.  Wliat 
else  can  be  understood  from  a  passage  like  the  following. 

"  Ibid,  p.  208. 
•Mbid,  p.  209. 
■"Ibid,  pp.  209-211. 


18  THE   NORMATIVE   USE   OF   SCRIPTURE 

' '  It  was  really  in  the  prophet 's  message  to  his  own  times  that  the 
essence  of  his  prophecy  lay.  The  prophet  was,  in  the  first  instance, 
a  messenger  to  his  own  age  and  people;  the  message  he  brought 
was  one  called  forth  by  the  needs  of  his  age,  and  in  form  and  sub- 
stance was  adapted  to  those  needs.  It  does  not  follow,  because  of 
this,  that  it  was  a  message  only  for  his  own  time  and  did  not  embody 
a  revelation  of  God  of  universal  import,  fitted  to  take  its  place  in  the 

general  organism  of  revelation The  chief  thing  to  be 

observed  at  present  is  the  intimate  relation  which  prophecy  always 
sustains  to  the  historical  conditions  out  of  which  it  springs.  The 
historical  setting  can  never  he  ignored,  if  prophecy  is  to  be  under- 
stood." (italics  mine)^*  To  be  consistent  with  his  whole  position  it 
would  seem  that  Professor  Orr  must  maintain  the  necessity  of  the 
prophet  himself  correctly  apprehending  the  historical  situation,  and 
also  of  the  one  who  reads  the  prophetic  message  correctly  grasp- 
ing its  meaning  in  relation  to  the  historical  setting.  Otherwise  the 
essence  of  the  revelation  will  be  missed. 

Now,  if,  as  Denney  says,  it  is  possible  to  err  in  every  detail  of  the 
historical  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament  while  reading  it  in  a 
Christian  sense,  and  yet  not  err  on  the  whole,  then  that  intimate 
association  of  revelation  with  history,  which  Professor  Orr  main- 
tains, simply  does  not  exist.  It  is  not  upon  such  a  basis  that  the 
latter  could  undertake  to  defend  the  reality  of  revelation  and  in- 
spiration in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  extent  to  which  the  authority  of  Jesus  and  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit  authenticates  the  historicity  of  miraculous  details  in  the  Old 
Testament  Denney  indicates  as  follows : 

"The  witness  of  the  Spirit,  by  and  with  the  word  in  the  soul, 
does  not  guarantee  the  historicity  of  miraculous  details,  but  it  does 
guarantee  the  presence  of  a  supernatural  element  in  the  history  re- 
corded. It  bars  out  a  criticism  which  denies  the  supernatural  on 
principle,  and  refuses  to  recognize  a  unique  work  of  God  as  in 
process  along  this  line."^^ 

"With  this  reservation  our  theologian  allows  to  Criticism  full 
freedom  and  rejoices  in  its  achievements,  especially  in  the  field  of 
prophecy.     Indeed,  he  carefully  refrains  from  defining  the  super- 

**  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  93. 
^  Studies  in  Theology,  p.  212. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  19 

natural  element  whose  presence  in  the  Old  Testament  history  he 
alleges  to  be  guaranteed  by  the  witness  of  the  Spirit.  As  regards  the 
narratives  of  the  Old  Testament  also,  he  makes  admissions  that  up- 
on Orr's  theory  must  be  considered  extremely  damaging.  For  ex- 
ample, he  affirms  that  the  stories  of  beginnings  in  the  early  chapters 
of  Genesis  are  pure  myths  resting  upon  no  basis  of  record  or  of 
tradition.^''  Professor  Orr,  upon  the  contrary,  maintains  that  these 
stories  while  containing  elements  of  poetry  and  symbolism  never- 
theless rest  upon  a  sound  tradition  of  actual  transactions,  and  are, 
therefore,  to  be  distinguished  rigidly  from  "myth"  which  is  a  pure 
creation  of  the  imagination.'^^  It  becomes  apparent  what  a  jealous 
mistress  Professor  Orr's  theory  of  historical  revelation  can  be  when 
coupled  with  the  traditional  theological  scheme. 

As  touching  the  authority  of  the  apostolic  doctrinal  interpre- 
tation of  the  facts  of  Christ,  Denney  is,  indeed,  somewhat  more 
concerned.  As  a  New  Testament  theologian  he  is  zealous  for  the 
value  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  theological  standard.  He  feels  it 
necessary,  not  so  much  in  his  later  as  in  his  earlier  writings,  to 
maintain  a  strict  doctrinal  unity  or  harmony  between  (a)  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptic  gospels  and  the  interpretation  of 
the  apostolic  writings,  and  (b)  the  several  interpretations  of  the 
various  New  Testament  books  or  groups  of  books.  It  has  been 
noted,  and  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  Professor  Den- 
ney's  theologizing  in  his  earlier  books,  was  largely  in  forgetfulness 
of  his  doctrine  of  Scripture,  laid  down  in  the  Ninth  Lecture  of  his 
Studies  in  Theology.  How  far  this  is  true,  and  the  difference  that 
appears  in  his  later  volumes  we  will  have  occasion  to  point  out  in 
the  succeeding  chapter.  Here  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  Denney 
employs  the  usual  arguments  to  gain  a  certain  a  priori  credit  for  the 
apostolic  theology.  "The  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to  enable  the 
apostles  to  interpret  the  revelation  contained  in  the  life,  death  and 
exaltation  of  Jesus."  The  apostles  were  conscious  that  their  gospel, 
with  the  expiatory  significance  of  the  death  of  Christ,  as  its  central 
doctrine  was  not  taught  them  by  man.  Such  considerations  are 
urged  in  addition  to  the  argument  from  the  internal  testimony  of 
the  Spirit,  as  reasons  why  the  apostolic  form  of  thought  should  be 
accorded  special  honor  and  authority. 

^  Studies  in  Theologj^  p.  218. 

^  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.   166.  So  Hodge,  and  Curtis. 


20 


THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 


It  is  believed  by  the  writer  that  the  views  of  the  five  theologians 
whose  positions  we  have  been  expounding  and  comparing,  repre- 
sent all  the  important  aspects  of  orthodox  opinion  upon  the  subject 
under  consideration.  Different  shades  and  combinations  of  the 
same  views  appear,  but  no  significant  additions.  Professor  Olin 
Curtis,  for  example,  presents  a  peculiar  combination  of  the  positions 
of  Orr  and  Denney.  He  grounds  the  authority  of  the  Bible  upon  its 
character  as  a  moral  dynamic,  which  character  it  has  by  virtue  of  its 
relation  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  divine  redemptive  plan  that  cul- 
minates in  Him  and  His  work.  This  plan  is  intimately  involved 
with  the  whole  course  of  the  history  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  receives  its  complete  interpretation  at  the  hands  of  the  apostles 
from  the  point  of  view  of  a  finished  work — accomplished  by  Jesus  in 
his  death.  With  Orr,  therefore,  Curtis  feels  the  necessity  of  main- 
taining the  historical  and  scientific  character  of  whatever  details 
affect  the  redemptive  plan,  e.  g.,  the  Creation  and  Fall  stories.  He 
speaks  of  the  Bible  as  "a  redemptional  organism  of  fact  and  doc- 
trine." Manifestly  in  his  doctrine  of  Scripture  he  is  more  nearly 
allied  with  the  position  of  Orr,  but,  as  we  shall  see,  he  is  theo- 
logically in  much  closer  accord  with  Denney — a  fact  which  is  not 
without  significance  in  relation  to  our  main  inquiry. 

We  may  now  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  various  views 
of  Inspiration  that  accompany  the  conception  of  Revelation  and  the 
relation  of  Scripture  thereto.  Doctrines  of  Inspiration  appear 
historically  to  be,  in  part,  reflexes  of  the  prior  and  more  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  supernatural  revelation ;  in  part,  instruments  to 
serve  polemic  need;  and,  in  part,  the  pure  results  of  traditional 
theological  obligation.  The  logical  priority  and  superiority  of  the 
doctrine  of  revelation,  as  also  the  secondary,  formal  character  of 
that  of  Inspiration  is  nowhere  more  forcefully  stated  than  by  the 
late  Professor  C.  M.  Mead,  who  was  himself  so  stanch  and  able  a 
defender  of  Orthodox  positions  in  general.  ' '  There  would  be  no  oc- 
casion for  asserting  and  no  ground  for  believing,  that  the  biblical 
writers  were  divinely  inspired,  unless  there  were  antecedently  an 
assumption  that  it  was  a  divine  revelation  which  they  were  es- 
pecially commissioned  to  describe.  The  writers  are  believed  to  have 
been  inspired,  because  there  is  believed  to  have  been  an  all  im- 
portant revelation  which  needed  to  be  carefully  recorded. ' '  ^s  Ac- 
**  Supernatural  Revelation,  p.  281. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OP   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  21 

cordingly,  as  is  the  revelation  so  must  the  inspiration  be.     But,  a 
doctrine  of  revelation  may  be  the  result  of  reflection  upon  religious 
experience,  or  it  may  be  determined  by  an  objective  study  of  the 
historical  phenomena  as  recorded  in  the  literature  of  a  given  re- 
ligious movement.     As  we  have  pointed  out,  the  post-Reformation 
doctrine  of  Inspiration  was  developed  under  the  stress  of  polemic 
needs.     The  Protestant  theologians  were  confronted  by  an  ecclesi- 
astical institution  possessing  a  system  of  doctrinal  truth  scholas- 
tically  formulated  and  defended,  and  claiming  absolute  authority 
for  its  teaching  function.     This  institution  and  its  claims  could  be 
opposed   only    by    the    erection    of    Scripture    into    an    infallible 
authority,  and  by  the  imputation  to  it  of  the  same  doctrinal  reve- 
lation character  as  that  of  the  church  system.    Since  revelation  was 
scholastically  conceived,  and  since  the  Bible  was  identified  Mdth  it, 
every  part  of  the  Bible  had  to  be  guaranteed  a  place  in  the  system. 
To  afford  this  guarantee  was  the  function  of  the  fully  developed 
verbal  or  plenary  theories  of  Inspiration.    Thus  it  will  be  seen  that 
this  doctrine  of  Inspiration  was  attached  to  the  Christian  religion 
in  quite  a  superficial  and  adventitious  way.    It  never  obtained  any 
definite  and  emphatic  expression,  in  the  greater  Symbols  of  the 
Church,  and  was,  therefore  destined  to  pass  away  with  the  arrival 
of  new  conditions.     The  conditions  that  did  develope  are  these: 
(a)  The  battle  between  Protestantism  and  Catholicism  wore  itself 
out,  and  Protestant  theology  ceased  to  be  determined  mainly  or 
directly  by  the  exigencies  of  anti-Roman  polemic,     (b)  The  endless 
controversies  between  the  divided  camps  of  Protestantism  caused  the 
most  honest  and  competent  minds  to  question  the  validity  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  acknowledged  by  all,  seeing  that,  in  fact,  it  did  not 
yield  the  result  it  was  alleged  to  promise.    It  did  not  yield  that  one 
clear  and  indisputable  system  of  doctrinal  truth  that  an  assumed  di- 
vine revelation  recorded  in  a  fully  inspired  Bible  ought  necessarily 
to  convey  to  the  human  mind.   (3)  The  application  of  scientific,  liter- 
ary, and  historical  method  to  the  study  of  Scripture  made  it  pos- 
sible and  necessary,  for  the  first  time,  to  determine  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  and  therewith  the  doctrine  of  revelation,  by  an  induction 
of  the  objective  facts  of  Scripture  itself.     This,  it  is,  that  most  of 
all  dissolved  the  fictitious  literary  theory  that  was  built  up   to 
answer  an  apologetic  need,  with  no  scientific  consciousness  of  the 
actual  phenomena  of  the  literature  upon  which  it  was  imposed. 


22  THE   NORMATIVE   USE  OP   SCRIPTURE 

Hence  the  need  now  felt  of  distinguishing  between  Revelation  and 
its  record,  and  of  finding  a  more  modest  function  for  Inspiration  in 
proportion  to  the  altered  conception  of  revelation  itself.  Manifestly, 
in  so  far  as  any  given  theologian  is  consistent  with  himself,  his  theory 
of  inspiration  may  be  graded  with  reference  to  the  distance  he  has 
traveled  away  from  the  scholastic  theory  of  revelation  under  the  de- 
mands of  which  the  extreme  high  theory  of  inspiration  was  formed. 
But,  inasmuch  as  theologians  are  human,  we  will  find  them  yielding 
to  other  considerations  than  those  of  strict  logical  consistency.  They 
have  a  theological  heritage,  an  ecclesiastical  constituency,  and  there 
are  present  day  apologetic  needs.  We  have  seen  how  the 
theologians  of  the  school  under  consideration  stand  upon  the 
question  of  Revelation  and  the  general  doctrine  of  Scripture  author- 
ity. We  may  now  conclude  this  chapter  with  a  brief  conspectus  of 
their  views  upon  the  more  special  doctrine  of  Inspiration. 

Doctor  Charles  Hodge,  as  a  dogmatician  standing  frankly  upon 
the  Westminster  Confession,  felt  no  obligation  to  ground  the  Chris- 
tian revelation  upon  considerations  external  to  the  authority  of 
Scripture  itself  as  the  fully  inspired  document  of  revelation. 
According  to  his  view  it  is  their  inspiration  that  constitutes  the 
Scriptures  the  ''Word  of  God,"  and  imparts  to  them  their  exclusive 
and  infallible  authority  as  source  and  norm  of  theology.^'^  Never- 
theless he  distinguishes  between  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  places 
the  former  logically  before  the  latter  and  states  succinctly  the  lines 
upon  which  the  revelation  in  the  Bible  might  be  proved  independ- 
ently of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  His  suggestions  at  this  point 
are  those  that  have  since  been  developed  in  extenso  by  such  writers, 
e.  g.,  as  Orr.  (a)  The  organic  unity  of  the  Scriptures  proves  them 
to  be  the  product  of  one  mind,  which  can  be  no  other  than  the  mind 
of  God.  (b)  The  adaptation  to  our  souls  of  the  truths  revealed  in 
the  Bible,  induces  us  to  receive  them  and  the  Bible  that  contains 
them,  as  true,  hence  as  divine,  and  therefore  a  supernatural 
revelation  plenarily  inspired.  (c)  Supremely  we  receive  the 
doctrine  upon  the  authority  of  Jesus.  "We  believe  the  Scriptures 
because  Christ  declares  them  to  be  the  Word  of  God."*<'  As 
regards  the  distinction  between  Revelation  and  Inspiration  Doctor 
Hodge   and  his  successors   of  the  Princeton   school   are  in   close 

^  Systematic  Theol.,  Vol.  I,  p.  153. 
^"Ibid,  pp.  166-168. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  23 

agreement.  Eevelation  and  Inspiration  differ  both  as  to  their 
objects  and  effects.  By  the  former,  knowledge  is  communicated 
to  the  human  mind;  by  the  latter  infallibility  in  teaching  is 
secured."  Professors  A.  A.  Hodge  and  Warfield,  indeed,  feel 
the  need  of  divorcing  more  decisively  the  religious  and  apologetic 
interest  in  the  reality  of  a  divine  revelation  in  Scripture, 
and  the  theologico-dogmatic  interest  in  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
They  urge  that  the  truth  of  Christianity  does  not  depend  upon  any 
theory  of  inspiration,  and  that  revelation  came,  in  large  part,  before 
its  record.  Nevertheless  they  hold  as  firmly  as  Doctor  Charles  Hodge 
to  the  theory  of  a  plenarily  inspired  Bible  as  fundamental  to  inter- 
pretation and  hence  to  the  scientific  theological  use  of  Scripture. 
"Very  many  religious  and  historical  truths  must  be  established 
before  we  come  to  the  question  of  inspiration ;  as,  for  instance,  the 
being  and  moral  government  of  God,  the  fallen  condition  of  man, 
the  fact  of  a  redemptive  scheme,  the  general  historical  truth  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  validity  and  authority  of  the  revelation  of 
God's  will,  which  they  contain— i.  e.,  the  general  truth  of  Christian- 
ity and  its  doctrines.  Hence  it  follows  that  while  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures  is  true,  and  being  true  is  a  principle  fundamental  to 
the  adequate  interpretation  of  Scripture,  it  is,  nevertheless,  in  the 
first  instance,  not  a  principle  fundamental  to  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion. ' '  *- 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  our  theologians  would  expect  to 
establish  the  "general  truth  of  Christianity  and  its  doctrines"  with- 
out using  the  Scriptures.  But,  as  such  use,  independent  of  the 
doctrine  of  Inspiration  could  not  include  the  adequate  interpreta- 
tion of  them,  we  are  entitled  to  infer  to  a  distinction  between  the 
use  of  Scripture  for  apologetic  purposes,  and  its  use  for  theological 
construction  in  the  scientific  sense.  What  this  quality  or  value  is, 
which  inspiration  imparts  to  Scripture,  for  those  who  hold  to  inspi- 
ration is  suggested  in  the  following  passage.  Arguing  against  those 
who  restrict  inspiration  to  the  divine  element  in  the  revelation,  and 
who  maintain  that  the  sacred  writers  were  left  to  their  own  human 
resources  in  the  thinking  out,  narration,  exposition,  and  record 
of  the  divine  truth,  these  theologians  say— "This  view  gives  up  the 

"  Ibid,  pp.  155,  156.  Cf.  also  Hodge  and  Warfield,  Presb.  Review,  1881, 
p.  225  fF. 

^  Presbyterian  Review,  April  1881,  pp.  226,  227. 


24  THE   NORMATIVE   USE   OP   SCRIPTURE 

whole  matter  of  the  immediate  divine  authorship  of  the  Bible  as  the 
Word  of  God,  and  its  infallibility  and  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.  We  have  only  the  several  versions  of  God's  revela- 
tions, as  rendered  mentally  and  verbally  more  or  less  accurately  and 
adequately,  yet  always  imperfectly  by  the  different  sacred  writ- 
ers."*^ Evidently  these  writers  are  laboring  to  secure  for  Scripture 
an  external  authority  which  shall  serve  the  purpose  of  dogmatics 
in  a  way  and  to  a  degree  that  the  authority  based  upon  their  purely 
moral  and  religious  appeal  cannot  do.  They  express  the  heart  of 
the  matter  when  they  say — "If  the  new  views  are  untrue,  they 
threaten,  not  only  to  shake  the  confidence  of  men  in  the  fe».riptures, 
but  the  very  Scriptures  themselves  as  an  objective  ground  of 
faith."  **  We  may  pass  over  the  curious  dilemma  suggested  by  this 
language.  It  would  have  been  embarrassing  to  say  that  true  views 
would  shake  the  confidence  of  men  in  the  Scriptures,  or  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves,  nor  does  it  seem  complimentary  either  to  men  or 
Scriptures  to  intimate  that  such  results  would  follow  from  untrue 
views.  The  meat  of  the  matter  lies  in  the  expression — "the  very 
Scriptures  themselves  as  an  objective  ground  of  faith."  "It  would 
assuredly  appear  that  as  no  organism  can  be  stronger  than  its 
weakest  part,  that  if  error  be  found  in  any  one  element  or  in  any 
class  of  statements,  certainty  as  to  any  portion  could  rise  no  higher 
than  belongs  to  that  exercise  of  human  reason  to  which  it  will  be  left 
to  discriminate  the  infallible  from  the  fallible. ' '  *^ 

In  the  theology  of  President  A.  H.  Strong  we  may  note  important 
abatements  of  the  high  theory  of  inspiration  held  by  the  Princeton 
school  and  expressed  by  himself  in  earlier  editions  of  his  Systematic 
Theology.  "Inspiration,"  he  now  says,  "is  that  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  upon  the  minds  of  the  Scripture  writers  which  made 
their  writings  the  record  of  a  progressive  divine  revelation  sufficient 
when  taken  together  and  interpreted  by  the  same  Spirit  who  in- 

■"  Ibid,  p.  232.  Cf.  also  A.  H.  Strong,  Syst.  Theol.,  I,  41.  In  this  passage 
President  Strong  registers  his  dissent  from  the  principle  of  modern  Biblical 
Theology  upon  precisely  the  grounds  stated  above. 

"  Ibid,  pp.  241,  242.  In  the  position  here  stated  we  find  the  ground  of 
Professor  Warfield's  criticism  of  Denney's  "Atonement  and  the  Modern  Mind." 
He  charges  Denney  with  Rationalism  upon  the  ground  that  the  latter  does  not 
recognize  the  external  or  "bare"  authority  of  Scripture.  See  Princeton  Theol. 
Review,  Oct.,  1904. 

*  Ibid,  p.  242. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  25 

spired  them  to  lead  every  honest  inquirer  to  Christ  and  to  sal- 
vation. ' '  *^ 

Here,  too,  we  see,  as  in  the  case  of  Hodge  and  Warfield,  that  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration  is  conceived  as  the  means  of  securing  the 
organic  unity  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  one  authoritative  document  of 
revelation.     At  this  point,  however,  so  far  as  President  Strong's 
definition  is  concerned,  the  parallel  ceases.     Whereas  the  Princeton 
theologians  hold  a  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  and  inerrancy  of 
Scripture  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  President  Strong  is  con- 
tent with  a  doctrine  of  sufficiency  of  Scripture  for  the  religious  pur- 
pose of  leading  men  to  Christ  and  to  salvation.  ' '  Inspiration  did  not 
guarantee  inerrancy  in  things  not  essential  to  the  main  purpose  of 
Scripture."^'    Nevertheless,  he  has  a  strong  theological  interest  in 
the  doctrine  of  Inspiration.    The  Scriptures  are  sufficient,  even  for 
their  religious  purpose,  only  when  taken  together.    What  this  "to- 
getherness" of  Scripture  is  appears  in  the  following:  "Yet  notwith- 
standing the  ever  present  human  element,  the  all  pervading  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  constitutes  these  various  writings  an  organic 
whole.    Since  the  Bible  is  in  all  its  parts  the  work  of  God,  each  part 
is  to  be  judged  not  by  itself  alone,  but  in  its  connection  with  every 
other  part.  The  Scriptures  are  not  to  be  interpreted  as  so  many  mere- 
ly human  productions  by  different  authors,  but  as  also  the  work  of 
one  divine  mind.    Seemingly  trivial  things  are  to  be  explained  from 
their  connection  with  the  whole.     One  history  is  to  be  built  up  from 
the  several  accounts  of  the  life  of  Christ.    One  doctrine  must  supple- 
ment another. ' '  *^  While,  therefore,  President  Strong  would  not  go 
the  full  length  of  the  "inerrancy  theory"  *^  he  does  regard  the  doc- 
trine of  Inspiration  as  fundamental  to  theological  procedure  since  it 
guarantees  the  organic  unity  of  Scripture.     It  is  upon  this  basis 
that  he  rejects  modern  Biblical  Theology  in  its  approach  to  the 
literary  units  of  the  Bible  without  any  presupposition  of  their 
unity.^°     He  places  the  discussion  of  Inspiration  in  the  forefront  of 
his  Theology  proper,  and  in  stating  the  method  of  determining  the 
divine  attributes  he  says,  "Now  that  we  have  proved  the  Scriptures 

«Syst.  Theol.,  Vol.  I,  p.  196. 
*'  Ibid,  p.  215. 
"Syst.  Theol.,  I,  217. 
«  Ibid,  pp.  218,  229. 
« Ibid,  41. 


26  THE  NORMATIVE  USE  OF  SCRIPTURE 

to  be  a  revelation  from  God,  inspired  in  every  part,  we  may  proper- 
ly look  to  them  as  decisive  authority  with  regard  to  God's  at- 
tributes."" 

Professor  Orr's  treatment,  while  seeking  to  preserve  a  place  for 
inspiration,  certainly  diminishes  materially  its  importance  as  a  theo- 
logical presupposition.  All  his  emphasis  is  placed  upon  Revelation 
as  the  conception  with  material  content.  But  while  revelation  in  the 
order  of  inquiry,  precedes  inspiration  yet,  "over  a  large  area  in  the 
fact  itself  (Wliat  the  'fact  itself  is,  Orr  does  not  clearly  state) 
revelation  and  inspiration  are  closely  and  inseparaMy  united.  In- 
ternal revelation,  e.  g.,  such  as  we  have  in  prophecy,  or  in  the 
'revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,'  claimed  for  himself  by  Paul,  is  not 
conceivable  save  as  accompanied  by  an  inspired  state  of  soul.  In- 
spiration is  involved  in  the  very  reception  of  such  a  revelation ;  is  a 
necessary  condition  of  the  revelation  being  apprehended,  possessed, 
and  communicated  to  others.  In  the  very  acknowledgement,  there- 
fore, of  revelation  as  an  element  pervading  the  Bible  and  giving 
unity  to  its  parts,  there  is  implied  an  acknowledgement  of  inspi- 
ration. Just  as,  on  the  other  side,  there  can  be  no  degree  of  inspi- 
ration, however  humble,  which  does  not  imply  some  measure  of 
revelation."^-  In  this  passage  Professor  Orr  seems  to  perform  a 
curious  feat  of  legerdemain.  From  the  ''large  area"  over  which  he 
says,  revelation  and  inspiration  are  closely  united,  he  passes  like 
lightning  to  the  wliole  area  of  the  biblical  revelation.  The  "large 
area"  is  constituted  by  what  he  calls  internal  revelation.  Forgetting 
this  restriction  he  applies  the  idea  of  inspiration  gained  from  it  to 
the  whole  extent  of  revelation  "pervading  the  Bible  and  giving  uni- 
ty to  its  parts"  without  taking  account  of  that  revelation  which  is 
not  internal.  This  is  a  non  sequitur,  and  Doctor  Orr  builds  upon 
sandy  foundations  when  he  goes  on  to  say  that  "Revelation  and  In- 
spiration thus  go  together,  and  conjointly  give  to  the  written  word 
a  quality  which  distinguishes  it  from  any  product  of  ordinary  hu- 
man wisdom.  "^^  What  this  quality  is  which  revelation  and  inspi- 
ration conjointly  give  to  the  written  word,  may  be  inferred  from 
Orr's  interpretation  of  2Tira.  3  :16,  namely,  that  Inspiration  confers 
upon  Scripture  the  property  of  being  profitable  for  teaching  etc. 

"  Ibid,  247. 

^^  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  199,  200. 

^  Ibid,  p.  200. 


THE   ORTHODOX   DOCTRINE   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  27 

etc.^*  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  upon  Professor  Orr's  presentation 
of  the  doctrine  of  Revelation,  what  room  there  is  for  a  doctrine  of 
Inspiration  with  such  content  as  to  affect  the  form  or  substance 
of  the  record.  "Inspiration  cannot  transcend  the  existing  stage 
of  Revelation;  it  exists  in  different  degrees  according  to  the 
nature  or  character  of  the  person  who  is  its  subject;  it  cannot 
go  behind  or  supplement  or  correct  its  sources  of  information."^^ 
Accordingly,  Professor  Orr  is  unable  to  subscribe  to  the  "in- 
errancy theory"  as  held  by  Hodge  and  Warfield.  He  does  not 
favor  us  with  an  explicit  definition  of  the  inspiration  of  Scrip- 
ture but  leaves  us  to  infer  one  from  a  statement  of  the  result 
in  the  following  characteristic  form.  "The  Bible,  impartially 
interpreted  and  judged,  is  free  from  demonstrable  error  in  its 
statements,  and  harmonious  in  its  teachings,  to  a  degree  that 
of  itself  creates  an  irresistible  impression  of  a  supernatural  factor  in 
its  origin."  ^^  We  must  conclude  from  Professor  Orr's  whole  dis- 
cussion that  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  is  not  one  that  can  have  any 
appreciable  effect  upon  his  use  of  the  Scriptures  in  theology.  For 
this  his  conception  of  Revelation  is  regulative,  and  revelation  is 
grounded  upon  the  logical  and  teleological  character  of  the  ideas  and 
the  history  in  their  mutual  involution.  Logical  consistency  and  teleo- 
logical reference  are  held  to  guarantee  historical  reality  and  sub- 
stantial accuracy,  and  the  history  is  primarily  the  revelation. 

With  Professor  Denney  we  reach  the  minimum  of  emphasis  upon 
the  inspiration  of  Scripture  as  a  theological  doctrine.  The  inspi- 
ration of  the  Bible  is  held  to  be  its  power  of  moral  and  spiritual  ap- 
peal. This  power  is  again  identified  with  the  fundamental  unity  of 
the  Bible  which  is  apprehended  only  in  the  light  of  the  doctrine 
constituting  the  focal  point  and  religious  substance  of  the  whole 
Christian  revelation,  namely,  the  doctrine  of  Atonement.  Thus  the 
doctrine  of  Inspiration  is  merely  the  explanation  of  the  exceptional 
value  which  Christian  experience  finds  to  attach  to  the  central 
Christian  truth.^^ 

Clearly,  nothing  in  Denney 's  theology  depends  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  Inspiration.     All  the  substantial  realities  and  values  are 

"Ibid,  p.  161. 

"=  Ibid,  pp.  175-181. 

'^  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  215. 

"Death  of  Christ,  pp.  314-317. 


28  THE  NORMATIVE  USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

found  by  and  through  experience,  and  the  lines  of  theological  con- 
struction are  determined  prior  to  any  verdict  upon  Scripture  either 
as  an  organic  unity  or  as  inspired.  Indeed,  the  discovery  of  the 
organic  unity  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  verdict  of  inspiration.^® 

Professor  Olin  Curtis  who  is  so  closely  akin  to  Denney  in  his  con- 
ception of  the  dogmatic  center  of  the  Bible,  but  who,  on  the  other 
hand  agrees  so  strikingly  with  Orr  in  regarding  revelation  as 
primarily  a  continuous,  coherent  historical  redemptive  process, 
carefully  distinguishes  between  the  question  of  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  and  that  of  its  inspiration.  The  former  is  grounded  in  the 
cogency  of  its  moral  and  spiritual  appeal  to  men,  while  the  latter  is 
simply  the  explanation  of  the  power  and  peculiarity  of  the  book 
which  actually  is  authority.^^ 

That  in  which  all  three  of  these  theologians  agree,  is  the  fact 
that  any  view  of  inspiration  is  to  be  derived  from  the  prior  notion  of 
revelation  itself  self-attesting.  The  doctrine  of  inspiration  is  purely 
formal  and  derivative.  It  can  lay  no  claim  to  govern  theological 
procedure,  and  can  contribute  nothing  to  theological  content.  We 
are  reminded  how  far  orthodox  theology  has  traveled  when  we  com- 
pare the  positions  of  Orr,  Curtis  and  Denney  with  that  expressed  by 
Doctor  Charles  Hodge  where  he  says,  "The  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  are  the  Word  of  God,  written  under  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are,  therefore,  infallible,  and  of  divine 
authority  in  all  things  pertaining  to  faith  and  practice,  and  conse- 
quently free  from  all  error  whether  of  doctrine,  fact,  or  precept. ' '  ^*^ 

''Death  of  Christ,  p.  314. 
The  Christian  Faith,  pp.  171-176, 
'  Systematic  TheoL,  I,  162. 


5D 
60 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  THEOLOGICAL  USE  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

We  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  all  the  theologians 
of  our  school  maintain  in  some  sort  a  unity  of  the  Scripture  whole. 
To  some  this  unity  consists  primarily  in  a  system  of  truth  revealed 
as  such  by  God  through  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To 
others  the  unity  is  found  primarily  in  a  connected  series  of  redemp- 
tive acts  of  God  through  a  long  historical  process  and  in  pursuance 
of  an  eternal  purpose. 

In  all  periods  it  has  been  true  that  the  theological  use  of  the 
Scriptures  has  been  determined  by  the  views  held  respecting  Scrip- 
ture itself.  That  is  to  say  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  has  determined 
the  doctrine  found  in  Scripture.  The  exegetical  process  has  been 
controlled  by  religious  and  theological  presuppositions  under  which 
the  Scriptures  have  been  approached.^  It  is  immediately  evident 
that  this  fact  would  not  be  one  to  lament,  if  only  there  could  be  ap- 
proximate certainty  that  the  presuppositions  were  themselves  in  ac- 
cord with  fact  and  truth.  But  if  such  is  not  the  case,  then  interpre- 
tation and  theological  construction  will  be  only  exercises  in  error. 
We  are  to  inquire,  in  the  present  chapter,  what  influence  their  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  has  had  upon  the  interpretation  and  theological 
architecture  of  our  several  theologians.  We  are  to  test  the  worth  of 
their  doctrine  by  the  character  of  the  results  we  see  flowing  from  its 
application  to  the  biblical  material.  In  so  doing  we  may  follow,  in 
general,  the  same  order  of  investigation  as  hitherto,  in  this  treatise. 

Beginning,  then,  with  the  theology  of  Doctor  Charles  Hodge,  we 
would  first  remark  that  one  who  proposes  to  make  the  Bible  the  ex- 
clusive source  and  norm  of  his  theological  system  is  under  primary 
obligation  to  derive  his  doctrine  of  Scripture  from  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  If  he  dictates  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  to  the  Bible  and 
then  interprets  it  in  accord  with  the  doctrine,  he  is  according  to  the 
Bible  no  real  authority,  but  is  imposing  upon  it  his  own.  Let  us 
note,  then,  to  what  extent  Doctor  Hodge's  doctrine  of  Scripture  is 
Scriptural.  First  of  all  he  begins  with  an  analogy  between  nature 
and  the  Bible  as  the  repositories  of  the  facts  with  which  Science  and 
Theology  respectively  deal.    Certainly  there  is  nowhere  in  Scripture 

*Cf.  Immer. — Hermeneutics,  p.  11. 


30  THE  NORMATIVE  USE   OF   SCRIPTURE 

any  statement  warranting  such  an  analogy,  while  upon  grounds  of 
fact  and  logic  no  such  illustration  can  hold.  In  nature  the  facts  are 
such  as  can  be  repeatedly  observed  and  experimentally  verified  in 
a  total  context  of  unquestionable  relationships.  But  in  the  Scrip- 
tures we  have  only  a  fragmentary  collection  of  literary  documents 
diverse  in  character,  reporting  human  experiences,  and  ideas  under 
particular  local  and  temporary  conditions  that  can  never  be  re- 
stored. Here  the  method  of  observation  and  experiment  is  out  of 
the  question.  Only  the  theological  presupposition  that  the  Bible 
is  the  document  of  a  static,  unchanging  revelation  of  doctrinal 
truth,  permits  the  use  of  such  an  analogy.  jMoreover,  to  maintain 
the  analogy  with  any  degree  of  strictness  it  would  be  necessary  to 
suppose  in  natural  science  an  unchanging  nucleus  of  scientific  doc- 
trine so  extensive  and  authoritative  as  to  control  the  interpretation 
of  all  the  facts  subsequently  discovered.  We  know  that  Science 
has  in  her  history  absolutely  changed  front,  and  to  maintain  his 
analogy  Doctor  Hodge  would  have  to  admit  the  possibility  of  theol- 
ogy doing  likewise,  which  of  course  he  would  not  do.  He  has  said 
that,  ' '  The  Bible  is  no  more  a  system  of  theology  than  nature  is  a 
system  of  Chemistry  or  Mechanics. "  -  Is  it  not  evident,  upon  the 
contrary,  that  in  giving  us  "portions  of  a  system,"  ^  sufficiently 
clear  and  complete  to  serve  as  a  guide  and  authority  in  further 
construction,  the  Bible  gives  us  the  practical  equivalent  of  a  whole 
system  ? 

We  notice  next  the  manner  in  which  our  theologian  seeks  to 
ground  the  authority  of  Scripture  in  the  teaching  of  Scripture 
itself.  The  authority  and  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures  are  in- 
volved in  its  character  as  the  Word  of  God,  and  it  has  this  charac- 
ter by  virtue  of  its  inspiration  in  such  sense  that  what  the  biblical 
writers  say,  God  says.*  The  nature  and  extent  of  the  inspiration 
of  Scripture  he,  indeed,  asserts  are  to  be  learned  from  the  didactic 
statements  and  phenomena  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,^  but, 
whereas  all  these  statements  and  phenomena  have  reference  to  par- 
ticular men  speaking  upon  specific  occasions,  or  to  limited  portions 
of  the  Scripture  whole,  they  are  applied  to  the  writing  of  the  entire 

2  Syst.  Theol.,  I,  p.  1. 

=  Ibid,  p.  3. 

*Syst.  Theol.,  I,  pp.   153,  154. 

=  Ibid,  p.   153. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  31 

literature.     This  would  be  impossible  were  not  the  assumption  of 
unity  contained  in  the  phrase  "Word  of  God"  always  present  in  the 
theologian's  mind.    Manifestly  the  presupposition  of  any  doctrine 
of  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  as  a  whole  professed  to  be  derived 
from  the  statements  and  phenomena  of  Scripture,  is  always  just  the 
conception  of  the  Bible  as  an  organic  unity  of  revelation  in  such 
sense  as  to  constitute  it  "The  Word  of  God."    Without  this  pre- 
supposition no  careful  and  unbiased  examination  of  the  actual  facts 
would  yield  such  doctrine  of  inspiration  of  the  Scripture  whole. 
In  no  passage  of  the  Bible  is  the  Bible  as  a  whole  designated  in  any 
way.    In  no  Old  Testament  passage  is  there  a  reference  to  the  Old 
Testament  whole,  since  this  whole  did  not  exist  even  when  its  latest 
documents  were  written.    The  New  Testament,  indeed,  refers  to  the 
whole  Old  Testament  literature  in  various  ways,  e.  g.,  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Sacred  Writings,  but  they  are  not 
called  the  "Word  of  God"  or  any  other  title  justifying  the  dogma 
contained  in  that  formula.   Professor  Orr  is  in  error  when  he  says 
that  "Paul  names  them  (the  Old  Testament  Writings)  'the  oracles 
of  God. '  "  ^  This  phrase  refers  to  the  Law  and  not  the  entire  body 
of  Old  Testament  writings.   The  question  of  the  New  Testament  ca- 
non, without  the  determination  of  which  our  author's  whole  position 
would  be  meaningless,  does  not  once  come  within  the  purview  of 
Scripture.     He  is  compelled  to  establish  the  authority  of  the  Old 
Testament  canon  by  the  utterances  of  the  New,  and  then  by  a 
process  of  inference  to  establish  that  of  the  New.^     The  argument 
is  plainly  circular  and  invalid.     It  runs  as  follows :  Jesus  and  His 
apostles  recognized  the  Jewish  canon  and  quoted  from  the  Old 
Testament  writings  as  of  full  divine  authority.     But  if  the  in- 
spiration and  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  are  recognized,  upon 
the  authority  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  much  more  should  those  of 
the  New  be  recognized,  since  they  w^ere  produced  under  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  Spirit.     Jesus  promised  the  apostles  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  should  "bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance  and  ren- 
der them  infallible  in  teaching."    This  promise  was  fulfilled  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  from  which  time  they  "were  new  men,  with  new 

views,  with  new  spirit,  and  with  new  power  and  authority" 

Their  Jewish  prejudices  had  resisted  all  the  instructions  and  in- 

'Rom.  3:2. 

•'Cf.  admission  by  Mead,  Sup.  Rev.,  p.  304. 


32  THE   NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

fluence  of  Christ  for  three  years,  but  gave  way  in  a  moment  when 
the  Spirit  came  upon  them  from  on  high.®  After  this  the  apostles 
"claimed  to  be  the  infallible  organs  of  God  in  all  their  teachings 

"  Of  all  these  statements  and  interpretations  it  is  to  be 

said  that  if  they  were  true  to  fact,  still  they  would  not  reach  to  the 
intended  goal  of  the  argument,  for  the  simple  reason  that  statements 
made  primarily  with  reference  to  the  oral  proclamation  of  religious 
messages,  or  to  definite  and  limited  written  productions  cannot  be 
applied  to  a  whole  literature  or  even  to  documents  not  embraced  by 
the  immediate  reference.^ 

It  may  be  added  here  that  in  accordance  \^dth  the  criterion  our 
author  applies  to  the  determination  of  the  New  Testament  canon, 
we  should  have  to  eliminate  several  of  the  books  now  included  there- 
in. The  evidence  for  apostolic  authorship  or  sanction  would  in 
several  cases  be  extra-biblical  and  quite  inconclusive." 

The  foregoing  remarks  will  apply  to  the  manner  in  which  Profes- 
sors Hodge,  Warfield,  Orr  and  President  Strong  use  the  Scriptures 
in  building  up  their  doctrine  of  Scripture,  so  that  we  need  not 
review  them  in  severalty. 

As  for  the  manner  in  which  these  theologians  adduce  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  to  support  the  strict  view  of  the  unitary  character 
and  indefectible  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  whereby  it  "is  con- 
stituted in  every  passage  and  declaration  the  final  arbiter  of  belief 
and  practice, ' '  ^^  one  cannot  feel  that  account  has  been  taken  of 
all  the  facts.  Even  Professor  Orr,  in  spite  of  many  qualifications  and 
concessions  can  range  Jesus  upon  the  side  of  the  strict  Rabbinical 
party  as  regards  the  nice  questions  concerning  the  canon,  and  the 
mint,  anise  and  cummin  of  scribal  legalism.^^  Jesus'  attitude 
toward  the  Law  is  not  nearly  so  easy  to  determine  as  these  writers 
assume.  The  case  is  much  more  justly  stated  by  a  sympathetic  and 
fair-minded  Jewish  scholar  in  a  recent  volume.     "He  (Jesus)  had 

« Syst.  TheoL,  I,  160  f. 

»  This  is  illustrated  in  all  the  passages  cited  by  Hodge,  pp.  157-162.  Like- 
wise those  used  by  Orr,  Op.  cit.,  pp.  193-194. 

*"  The  results  that  appear  from  a  careful  induction  of  Scripture  claims  re- 
garding its  own  inspiration  are  set  forth  by  Professor  G.  B.  Smith  in  the  Bib. 
World,  Vol  36,  pp.  160ff. 

"  Warfield,  Diet,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels,  Vol.  ii,  p.  586,  Col.  2. 

^  Revelation  and  Insp.,  pp.  181,  184,  182. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OP    HOLY   SCRIPTURE  33 

adopted  a  prophetic  attitude  toward  the  Law,  The  inward  rather 
than  the  outward ;  love  rather  than  sacrifice ;  this  was  his  position. 
Whether  he  had  formulated  any  more  tlieoretic  point  of  view  may- 
well  be  doubted.  Thus  we  find  in  the  gospels  exaggerations  of  both 
kinds.  'Not  one  jot  or  tittle  shall  ever  pass  away  till  all  is  fulfilled. ' 
On  the  other  hand  we  find  the  conception  that  at  least  one  Mosaic 
ordinance  was  given  to  the  Israelites  because  of  the  hardness  of  their 
hearts.  We  find  a  theory  announced  that  Jesus  came  to  complete 
the  Law,  not  to  destroy  it,  but  this  completion  in  regard  to  such  an 
important  element  of  the  Law  as  the  dietary  injunctions  comes  upon 
occasion  to  something  not  remotely  resembling  abrogation.  Here 
in  each  case  the  question  as  to  historical  accuracy  needs  careful 
weighing.  Have  the  reporters  exaggerated  the  hostility  of  Jesus  to 
the  Law,  have  they  exaggerated  his  esteem  for  it?  Have  they, 
rather  than  he,  formulated  his  theoretic  attitude  toward  it?"  ^^ 

Professor  Orr  tries  to  surmount  this  apparent  conflict  between 
Jesus'  endorsement  and  his  criticism  of  the  Law  by  the  theory  of  a 
progressive  revelation  or  germinal  development.  "He  fulfilled,  but 
in  fulfilling,  necessarily  superseded  and  abolished  much  in  the  legal 
economy.  The  precepts  of  the  law  received  a  deeper  and  fuller 
interpretation  and  expression,  in  agreement  always,  however,  with 
the  law's  own  underlying  principles."  ^*  But  how  are  we  to  regard 
the  supersession  and  abolition  of  legal  precepts  as  deeper  and  fuller 
interpretations  of  them?^^ 

We  come  now  to  the  examination  of  the  doctrinal  content  of  the 
several  systems  under  consideration.  Here,  of  course,  the  limits  of 
this  inquiry  forbid  exhaustive  treatment.  At  best  we  can  hope  only 
to  present  such  instances  of  the  theological  use  of  Scripture  as 
shall  be  conclusive  for  the  prevailing  attitude  of  these  theologians. 
We  shall  select  what  seem  to  be  dominant  theological  interests  and 
note  how  these  are  derived  from,  or  supported  by  the  Scriptures, 
if  indeed,  they  are  so  derived  and  supported.  Otherwise  we  should 
be  able  to  see  their  real  sources  and  sanctions. 

"  C.  G.  Montefiore,  Commentary  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  xcii. 

"  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  184. 

"  Cf.  Mead,  Supernatural  Revelation,  p.  344.  "The  Mosaic  law  was  in  some 
particulars,  not  merely  defective  in  the  sense  of  being  germinal  or  prophetic, 
but  defective  in  the  sense  of  requiring  amendment  or  abolition." 


34  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

At  the  beginning  of  his  treatment  of  the  doctrine  of  God,  Doctor 
Charles  Hodge  places  the  famous  Westminster  definition  as  ex- 
pressing the  "Christian  sense"  of  the  word  God.  "God  is  a  Spirit, 
infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable,  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holi- 
ness, justice  and  truth."  The  definition  states  the  class  of  beings 
to  which  God  is  to  be  referred,  and  by  being  is  meant  substance  or 
essence.  God  is,  therefore,  in  his  nature  a  substance,  or  essence 
which  is  infinite,  eternal,  etc.  Following  his  first  rule  of  interpre- 
tation" namely,  that  words  are  to  be  understood  in  their  historical 
sense,  our  author  proposes  to  discover  the  usiis  loquendi  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  words  translated  by  the  word  "Spirit."  Thus 
we  will  learn,  he  thinks,  what  our  Lord  meant  when  he  said  ' '  God  is 
a  Spirit."  This  rather  large  inquiry  in  biblical  lexicography  he 
dismisses  in  three  lines  as  follows — "Originally  the  words  n^n  and 
xveuixa  meant  the  moving  air,  especially  the  breath,  as  in  the  phrase 
7iv£ui;,a  p(ou;  then  any  invisible  power;  then  the  human  soul.  In 
saying,  therefore,  that  God  is  a  Spirit,  our  Lord  authorizes  us  to 
believe  that  whatever  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  Spirit,  as  learned 
from  our  o^\^l  consciousness,  is  to  be  referred  to  God  as  determin- 
ing his  nature."  Accordingly,  our  theologian  proceeds  to  set  forth 
the  content  of  human  self-consciousness  in  the  introspective  manner 
of  the  psychology  of  his  day.  This  content  he  then  imports  into  the 
idea  of  God  and  defines  Him  as  a  simple,  immaterial  essence,  or 
substance,  personal  and  moral.  He  concludes  with  the  naive  re- 
mark, "It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  Scriptures  everywhere 
represent  God  as  possessing  all  the  above  attributes  of  a  Spirit. ' ' " 

Note,  now,  what  Doctor  Hodge  has  actually  done.  (1)  He  has  ig- 
nored the  fact  that  the  meaning  of  the  words  translated  "Spirit" 
has  varied  in  different  periods,  and  that  as  applied  to  both  God  and 
man  they  have  expressed  varying  shades  of  meaning.  His  first 
rule  of  interpretation  should  have  bound  him  to  a  careful  exami- 
nation of  the  words  in  the  usage  of  the  great  periods  of  biblical 
history  and  literature.  "The  sacred  writings  being  the  words  of 
God  to  man,  we  are  bound  to  take  them  in  the  sense  in  which  those  to 
whom  they  were  originally  addressed  must  inevitably  have  taken 
them. "  ^^  Under  this  principle  our  author  was  not  at  liberty  to  take 
some  special  meaning  of  a  biblical  word  and  then  to  read  that 

«0p.  cit.,  I,  p.  187;  also  p.  377. 
"  Syst.  TheoL,  I,  377. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OP    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  35 

meaning  into  all  instances  of  its  use  as  applied  to  God.  (2)  Doctor 
Hodge  has  availed  himself  of  the  presence  of  the  indefinite  article 
(which  of  course  is  not  in  the  original)  to  give  John  4:24  an  indi- 
vidual, psychological  turn  which  was  not  in  the  mind  of  the  writer. 
The  argument  lies,  in  Doctor  Hodge's  mind  as  follows.  Man  is  a  Spi- 
rit, God  is  a  Spirit.  Hence  a  psychological  analysis  of  an  individual 
human  consciousness  will  yield  a  knowledge  of  the  essential  nature 
of  God.  But  this  was  not  the  circle  of  ideas  in  which  the  mind  of  the 
writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  moved.  His  thought  is  a  composite  of 
Old  Testament,  or  Hebraic  ideas,  and  of  Greek  speculation.^^  But 
neither  his  Old  Testament  ideas,  nor  his  Greek  speculative  concepts 
would  admit  the  psychological  content  Doctor  Hodge  imports  into 
the  word  icveuixa  as  used  in  this  passage.  Both  God  and  man  are  said 
to  have  a  spirit,  but  there  is  no  philosophical  doctrine  of  the  essential 
being  of  God  as  Spirit,  in  the  Old  Testament,  at  least.^^  According- 
ly, Doctor  Hodge's  use  of  this  text  involves  a  threefold  perversity, 
(a)  He  misses  the  writer's  meaning,  (b)  He  developes  this  inac- 
curate psychological  interpretation  into  a  metaphysical  conception 
and  (e)  he  reads  this  metaphysical  conception  into  the  purely 
ethical  and  practical  theism  of  that  most  unmetaphysical  literature 
— the  Old  Testament.  Summarizing  what  has  been  said.  Doctor 
Hodge  in  this  particular  case  (a)  has  violated  his  whole  doctrine  of 
Scripture  as  the  sole  source  of  the  facts  with  which  theology  must 
deal,  by  introducing  materials  from  Eighteenth  century  psychology, 
and  Medieval  philosophy;  (b)  he  has  been  untrue  to  his  inductive 
method,  and  (c)  has  violated  his  first  rule  of  interpretation.  He  has 
done  these  things  because  he  starts  out  with  a  certain  philosophical 
view  of  the  nature  of  God  which  he  is  obligated  to  hold  as  the  true 
and  Christian  view ;  and  because  he  holds  the  Old  Protestant  view  of 
the  Bible  as  the  "Word  of  God,"  and,  therefore  as  expressing  an 
organic  unity  of  revelation.  It  must,  in  all  its  parts,  present  the 
same  conception  of  the  divine  nature. 

The  foregoing  illustrates  Doctor  Hodge's  practice  throughout, 
and  there  is  scarcely  a  division  in  his  theology  in  which  a  similar 
showing  might  not  be  made.  Wlien  lie  has  established  liis  doctrine  of 
the  nature  of  God  by  the  psychological  method,  of  course  he  must  de- 

"Cf.  E.  F.  Scott,  The  Fourth  Gospel,  Its  Purpose  and  Theology,  p.  334, 
I'See   A.   B.  Davidson,   Hast.   Bib.   Diet.,   Vol.   II,  p.   197;   Schultz,  O.   T. 
Theology,  Vol.  II,  p.  111. 


36  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

termine  His  attributes  by  the  same  method,  and  this  he  actually  does. 
The  breadth  of  his  use  of  Scripture  may  be  illustrated  by  the  fact 
that  in  the  development  of  his  Theism  he  cites  eighty-four  passages 
in  proof-text  style  from  twenty-seven  books — fifteen  Old  Testament 
books  and  twelve  New  Testament  books.  Of  the  New  Testament 
quotations,  thirty-two  in  all,  twelve  are  from  Pauline  writings,  and 
a  bare  half  dozen  are  from  the  gospels.  Of  those  from  the  gospels, 
four  are  from  Matthew  and  two  from  John,  as  follows.  Mat.  10 :30 ; 
27  :43 ;  19  :26 ;  20  :15.  Jno.  3  :16 ;  4 :24.  The  first  of  these,  a  poetic 
expression  in  the  midst  of  a  teaching  concerning  trust,  is  used  to 
support  the  doctrine  of  divine  omniscience.  The  second  is  used  to 
illustrate  a  use  of  the  Avord  "will"  in  the  sense  of  complacency 
(delighting  in)  with  a  view  to  maintaining  that  where  the  Scrip- 
ture speaks  of  willing  all  men  to  be  saved  it  does  not  express  pur- 
pose. The  words  are  not  from  Jesus  but  from  his  persecutors.  To 
use  the  text  as  he  does  our  author  would  seem  to  be  obligated  to 
maintain  the  inspiration  of  the  crucifiers  of  our  Lord.  The  third 
is  used  to  support  the  doctrine  of  omnipotence — ' '  God  can  do  what- 
ever he  wills  without  means  and  without  effort."  Mat.  20:15  is 
used  to  illustrate  the  Sovereignty  of  God  in  the  Calvinistic  sense, 
whereas  if  the  whole  parable  be  expounded  in  its  evident  intention 
it  teaches  quite  the  reverse  conception  of  God.  Jno.  3  :16  is  cited  as 
proving  that  the  great  end  of  redemption  was  the  manifestation  of 
God's  love,  for  his  own  glory.  No  such  meaning  can  be  extracted 
from  it,  unless  first  put  into  it. 

One  must  wonder  how  Doctor  Hodge  could  have  regarded  this  as 
a  sufficient  induction  of  Scripture  facts.  It  results  from  his  whole 
procedure  that  practically  nothing  is  drawn  from  the  personal 
revelation  in  the  teaching  and  life  of  Jesus  upon  the  very  theme  and 
central  religious  reality  of  Christianity,  namely  the  knowledge  of 
the  Father.  By  his  psychological  method  and  in  fulfillment  of  his 
confessional  obligations  Doctor  Hodge  has  displaced  and  nullified 
the  testimony  of  the  supreme  organ  of  God's  self-disclosure. 

It  is  proposed  to  examine  Warfield's  practice  chiefly  in  connec- 
tion with  his  present  lively  interest  in  Christology.  Though  he  is 
an  able  defender  of  the  "Westminster  theology  as  a  whole,  the  final 
issues  of  the  theological  battle  seem  to  him  to  be  drawn  at  the  point 
of  the  doctrine  of  Incarnation  and  specifically  that  view  of  the 
doctrine  represented  by  the  Chalcedonian  symbol.  Of  course,  he 
comes  to  the  defense  of  the  Chalcedonian  Christology  from  that 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  37 

side  of  the  question  which,  historically  has  ever  been  the  dominant 
concern  of  the  Church,  namely  the  Deity  of  Christ.  A  study  of  his 
theological  use  of  Scripture,  may,  then,  be  begun  by  noting  the 
spirit,  method  and  result  of  his  exegesis  in  his  volume  entitled 
"The  Lord  of  Glory"  (New  York  1907).  He  frankly  states  at  the 
outset  the  doctrinal  interest  in  wiiich  he  approaches  his  task. 
"We  are  entering,  then,"  he  says,  "in  part  upon  an  exposition, 
in  part  upon  an  argument.  We  wish  to  learn,  so  far  as  the  designa- 
tions applied  to  our  Lord  in  the  New  Testament  are  fitted  to  reveal 
that  to  us,  how  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  accustomed  to 
think  of  Jesus ;  we  wish  to  show  that  they  thought  of  Him  above 
everything  else  as  a  Divine  Person  .....  In  prosecuting  our  ex- 
position we  shall  seek  to  run  cursorily  through  the  entire  New  Testa- 
ment ;  in  framing  our  argument  we  shall  lay  primary  stress  on  the 
Gospels,  or  rather  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  adduce  the  remain- 
ing books  as  chiefly  corroborative  and  elucidative  to  what  we  shall 
find  in  the  evangelical  narratives.  Thus  we  hope  to  take  at  once  a 
wide  or  even  complete  view  of  the  whole  field,  and  to  throw  into 
prominence  the  unitarij  presupposition  hy  the  entire  Neiv  Testament 
of  the  deity  of  our  Lord"  (italics  mine)^" 

To  most  students  it  would  seem  a  somewhat  perilous  under- 
taking to  carry  two  such  interests— that  of  the  exegete  and  of  the 
apologete — in  the  close  connection  here  indicated,  and  to  require  an 
extraordinary  measure  of  poise  and  self-control,  not  attained  by 
many,  to  prevent  the  apologetic  interest  from  encroaching  upon  the 
expository.  Especially  would  it  seem  perilous  in  such  a  case  as  the 
present  one,  where  the  expositor  betrays  so  plainly  as  does  Warfield 
in  the  last  sentence  quoted,  that  his  final  result  is  in  hand  before 
the  process  of  exposition  begins.  Still  one  might  prejudge  his  case 
without  frankly  stating  it,  and  Warfield  may  be  perfectly  unbiased 
in  his  exegesis  notwithstanding  his  preconception  that  the  entire 
New  Testament  presupposes  the  deity  of  our  Lord.  Whether  he  is 
so  or  not  will  appear  upon  a  critical  examination  of  his  procedure  as 
regards  certain  critical  passages. 

We  note,  first  of  all,  his  exposition  of  Mat.  11 :27=Luke  10 :22, 
Mat.  28:19,  and  Mk.  13  :32=Mat.  24:36.  Concerning  the  latter, 
Warfield  says  (1)  that  Jesus  here  "asserts  for  himself  not  merely  a 
superhuman  but  even  a  superangelic  rank  in  the  scale  of  being", 

2»  The  Lord  of  Glorj',  pp.  2,  3. 


38  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OP   SCRIPTURE 

(2)  that  "He  separates  himself  from  the  angels  in  heaven  (note  the 
enhancing  definition  of  locality,  carrying  with  it  the  sense  of  the 
exaltation  of  these  angels  above  all  that  is  earthly)  as  belonging  to 
a  different  class  from  them,  and  that  a  superior  class."  (3)  that 
Jesus  "the  Son"  stands  as  definitely  and  as  incomparably  above  the 
category  of  angels,  the  highest  of  God's  creatures,  as  to  the  author 
of  the  epistle  of  the  Hebrews,  whose  argument  may  be  taken  as  a 
commentary  upon  this  pasage  (Heb.  1:4-2:8).  Concerning  all  this 
it  is  to  be  said  (1)  that  Warfield  misses  the  point  of  the  passage. 
Nothing  is  said  about  "rank  in  the  scale  of  being,"  the  subject  is 
' '  degrees  of  knowledge. ' '  A  difference  in  degree  of  knowledge  does 
not  necessarily  involve  difference  in  grade  of  being.-^  (2)  If  the 
passage  establishes  the  superangelic  uncreated  being  of  Jesus,  it 
also  establishes  his  infra-deistic  being.  There  is  as  strong  an 
element  of  subordination  to  the  father  as  there  is  of  elevation  above 
the  angels.  This  however,  Warfield  would  not  wish  to  admit  as  it 
would  conflict  with  his  Trinitarianism. 

Of  Mat.  28  :19  our  author  gives  the  following  exposition.  The 
Son  is  "made  openly  a  sharer  with  the  Father  (and  with  the  Holy 
Spirit)  in  the  single  name  of  God,"  "Jesus  here  asserts  a  place  for 
himself  in  the  precincts  of  the  ineffable  Name.  Here  is  a  claim 
not  merely  to  a  deity  in  some  sense  equivalent  to  and,  as  it  were, 
alongside  of  the  deity  of  the  Father,  but  to  a  deity  in  some  high 
sense,  one  with  the  deity  of  the  Father"  2-'  "The  significant  point 
of  this  passage  is  the  singular  'Name.'  It  does  not  read,  'Into  the 
Names'  as  of  many  but  of  one,^^— 'Into  the  Name'  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Spirit  are  therefore  in  some  ineffable  sense  one,  sharers  in  the 
single  name.  Of  course  it  is  what  we  know  as  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  which  is  suggested  here. "  ^^  It  would  be  impossible, 
of  course,  for  any  theologian  except  one  holding  some  such  high 
theory  of  verbal  inspiration  as  Warfield  does,  to  lay  such  emphasis 
upon  a  single  point  as  he  places  upon  the  use  of  the  singular 
TO  6vo[jLa  instead  of  the  plural  xa  6v6[;.aTa.    But  aside  from  the  theory 

=1  Upon  this  text,  Weiss.  Bib.  Theol.  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  39,  Vol.  I. 
2^  Op.  cit.,  p.   83. 

2=  This  sounds  like  an  echo  of  Gal.  3:16. 

"  Ibid,  p.  95.     Similar  and  even  stronger  expressions  in  allusion  to  this  pas- 
sage may  be  found  pp.  140,  136. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  39 

and  in  the  absence  of  dogmatic  demands  the  text  itself  does  not 
yield  any  such  interpretation.  Meyer  comments  as  follows  :  ' '  The 
singular  (to  ovopia)  points  to  the  specific  names  assigned  in  the  text 
to  each  of  the  three  respectively,  so  that  et!^  to  6vo[ji.a  is,  of  course, 
to  be  understood  both  before  tou  utou  and  tou  d'fioo  xveu^jLaTO?  .  . 
.  .  .  "We  must  beware  of  making  any  such  dogmatic  use  of  the 
singular  as  to  employ  it  as  an  argument  either  for  or  against  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  Jesus  "was  never  known  to 
claim  the  name  OeoE^  either  for  himself  or  for  the  Holy  Spirit. '  '-^ 

Warfield's  chief  reliance,  however,  for  the  establishment  of  the 
metaphysical  sonship  of  Jesus,  is  upon  the  passages  Matt.  11 :27 
=Luke  10:22.  Here,  it  is  said,  "our  Lord  asserts  for  himself  a  re- 
lation of  practical  equality  with  God,"  "not  merely  is  the  son  the 
exclusive  revealer  of  God,  but  the  mutual  knowledge  of  Father 
and  Son  is  put  on  what  seems  very  much  a  par.  The  Son  can  be 
known  only  by  the  Father  in  all  that  he  is,  as  if  His  being  were 
infinite  and  as  such  inscrutable  to  the  finite  intelligence ;  and  his 
knowledge  alone — 'again  as  if  He  were  infinite  in  His  attributes — is 
competent  to  compass  the  depths  of  the  Father's  being. "-"^  In  Luke 
"it  is  said,  not  that  the  'Father'  and  'Son'  know  each  other  but 
that  each  know  what  the  other  is,  that  is  to  say,  all  that  each  is. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  frame  a  statement  which  could  more  sharply 
assert  the  essential  deity  of  the  Son."-''     "The  assertion  of  the 

reciprocal   knowledge  of   the   Father   and   the    Sou 

rises  far  above  the  merely  mediatorial  function  of  the  Son  .  .  . 
.  .  ;  it  carries  us  back  into  the  region  of  metaphysical  re- 
alities. "^^  "  Jesus '  mediatorial  function  is  rooted  in  a  metaphysical 
relation  in  which  is  suggested  no  hint  of  subordination."-^ 

Here  again  Warfield  's  dogmatic  bias  and  his  theory  of  Scripture 
lead  him  off  into  verbal  and  scholastic  refinements  that  have  no  basis 
in  the  passage  considered  in  its  logical  sense.  A  little  impartial  at- 
tention will  impress  the  following  points.  (1)  The  present  tense 
(e7rtYtv{i)ay,eO  upon  which  Warfield  lays  much  stress  is  to  be  con- 

=»Com.  on  Matthew,  Eng.  Tr.,  Vol.  II,  p.  30. 
*'0p.  cit.,  pp.  82,  83. 
"Ibid,  p.  119. 

"*  Ibid,  p.  93.     To  such  statements  rege-vrding  these  passages  Warfield  fre- 
quently returns  throughout  his  voliune. 
^Op.  cit.,  p.  94. 


40  THE   NORMATIVE  USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

sidered  relatively  to  the  preceding  aorist  (TuapsSoGY)).  It  is  only- 
after  the  delivering  that  the  knowing  is  to  be  assumed.  The  fact 
that  all  things  had  to  be  delivered  would  bear  against  the  eternal 
knowing  of  the  Father  by  the  Son.  A  distinct  element  of  sub- 
ordination is  present.^^  (2)  The  knowledge  of  the  Father  by  the 
Son  which  the  Son  is  said  to  have  is  such  as  can  be  revealed  to 
others,  and  cannot  therefore  be  that  metaphysical  knowledge  of  the 
Father 's  essence  to  which  Warfield  refers.  ' '  All  that  God  is, ' '  with- 
in his  meaning,  would  be  essentially  incommunicable  to  finite 
ereatures.^^  (3)  The  "all  things"  (xavxa)  which  our  author  inter- 
prets to  mean  ' ' all  that  God  has, "  "all  that  is  peculiar  to  himself ' ' 
(Hahn,  endorsed  by  "Warfield)  is  rather  to  be  understood  of  the 
messianic  prerogatives  of  Jesus  and  of  the  ethical  elements  of  his 
historical  disclosure  of  God — a  revelation  which  was  possible  even 
to  finite  intelligencies.^-  Biblical  study  is  rapidly  tending  toward  a 
view  of  these  passages  which  denies  their  afiinity  "with  the  high 
Christology  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.^^ 

We  may  now  refer  to  a  more  recent  production  of  Warfield 's 
pen,  namely  his  series  of  articles  upon  "The  Two  Natures  and 
Recent  Christological  Speculation,"  American  Journal  of  The- 
ology, Vol.  15.  He  claims  that,  while  the  S6o  ouatat  may  first  appear 
in  extant  writings  in  a  fragment  of  Melito's  of  Sardis,  the  "thing" 
goes  back  to  the  beginning.^*  "The  doctrine  of  the  'Two  Natures' 
is  but  another  way  of  stating  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation." 
' '  No  Two  Natures,  no  Incarnation ;  no  Incarnation,  no  Christianity 
in  any  distinctive  sense.  "^'^    "  The  Chalcedonian  Christology  is  only 

^  Compare  Denney,  Jesus  and  the  Gospels,  pp.  238,  239, 

^^  As  Professor  Warfield  himself  suggests,  p.  83. 

»2  So  B.  Weiss,  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  I,  p.  78,  text 
and  footnote.  With  this  interpretation  Professor  Denney  (Jesus  and  the  Gospels, 
pp.  236-246)  is  in  essential  agreement.  The  difference  between  Professors  War- 
field  and  Dennej'^  may  be  simuned  up  by  means  of  a  parallel.  Warfield's 
Christology  includes  the  following  points:  Co-ordination  (equality),  Identifi- 
cation (deity).  Metaphysical  relation.  Denny's  are:  Subordination,  Correla- 
tion (uniqueness,  making  Jesus  religiously  determinative).  Ethical,  and  Vital 
relation  (not  denying  the  metaphysical  relationship,  but  declining  to  assert  it  as; 
essential  or  specially  helpful.) 

^'^Cf.  E.  F.  Scott:  Theologj'  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  189  ff.  Schmiedel, 
Das  vierte  Evangelium,  48  ff. 

"^  Vide  p.  340. 

^'  Ibid,  p.  337. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  41 

a  very  perfect  synthesis  of  the  biblical  data It  takes 

its  starting  point  from  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  thoroughly 
trusted  in  all  its  declarations,  and  seeks  to  find  a  comprehensive 
statement  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  Christ's  person  which  will 
do  justice  to  all  the  elements  of  its  representation. '  '^«  This  Chalce- 
donian  definition  brings  together  and  harmonizes  all  the  biblical 
data,  proving  thus  to  be  the  key  that  "unlocks  the  treasures  of 
biblical  instiniction  on  the  person  of  Christ  as  none  other  can,  and 
enables  the  reader  as  he  currently  scans  the  sacred  pages  to  take  up 
their  declarations  as  they  meet  him,  one  after  the  other,  into  an  in- 
telligently consistent  conception  of  our  Lord. ' '" 

These  aflBrmations  Warfield  proceeds  to  establish  from  Scripture. 
And  what  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  his  proof  ?  The  exact  title  of 
his  first  article  is  "The  Christology  of  the  New  Testament  Writ- 
ings" and  we  are  entitled  to  expect  a  fair  induction  of  the  materials 
of  the  whole  New  Testament  literature.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  we 
are  treated  to  a  highly  doctrinaire  exposition  of  three  Pauline 
texts,  viz.,  Rom.  9:5,  Phil.  2:6,  Col  2:9,  and  to  a  defense  of  the 
theory  that  the  designation  /.up to?  applied  to  Jesus  by  Paul  (and 
the  whole  primitive  Christian  community)  is  equivalent  in  meaning 
to  9eo<;.  Only  a  single  saying  of  Jesus  is  cited  with  reference  to  a 
doctrine  said  to  be  the  "hinge  on  which  the  Christian  system 
turns." 

It  is  neither  necessary  nor  possible  in  this  discussion  to  deal 
in  extenso  with  "Warfield 's  exposition  of  the  above-mentioned  texts. 
He  simply  assumes  that  controversy  has  terminated  with  reference 
to  these  admittedly  difficult  passages,  in  favor  of  the  use  he  wishes 
to  make  of  them — an  assumption  contrary  to  the  facts.  He  lightly 
dismisses  the  question  of  text-corruption  in  Romans  9  :5,  as  also  that 
of  the  doxological  nature  of  the  passage  or  of  its  proper  punctuation. 

In  bringing  Phil.  2:6  to  the  support  of  his  interpretation 
of  Rom.  9:5,  our  exegete  is  singularly  inattentive  to  the  context 

"  Ibid,  p.  341. 

"  Ibid,  p.  343.  Professor  Dcnney  speaks  of  the  Westminster  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Two  Natures  as  one  that  may  once  have  seemed  to  help  intelli- 
gence but  which  can  now  at  the  very  utmost  do  no  more  than  guard  against 
error — an  arbitrary  definition  of  God-manhood.  He  would  class  it  along  with 
the  technicalities  foreign  to  the  New  Testament.  Cf.  Studies  in  Theologj%  pp. 
69-70.  One  is  curious  to  know  how  any  statement  which  does  not  help  in- 
telligence can  possibly  guard  against  error. 


42  THE  NORMATIVE   USE   OF   SCRIPTURE 

and  gives  his  readers  scarcely  any  intimation  of  the  strength  of  an 
opposing  view  maintained  by  many  scholars  of  first  rank.^®  It  is 
by  no  means  certain  that  Christ  Jesus  is  here  ' '  asserted  to  be  '  on  an 
equality  with  God'  "  nor  is  it  certain  that  the  representation  of 
Christ  Jesus  as  sv  [xopff^  Oeou  uTiap/cov  is  precisely  to  call  him  God.^^ 
Attention  to  the  preceding  context  shows  that  the  writer  is  contem- 
plating a  practical  situation  possible  or  actual  in  which  there  is 
faction  and  vain  glory,  and  in  connection  with  which  is  always 
found  the  effort  to  grasp  at  something  not  possessed  but  assumed 
to  be  a  privilege  or  prerogative  rightfully  belonging  to  the  indi- 
vidual or  party  seeking  it.  It  is  with  a  view  to  the  correcting  of 
this  positive,  active,  pushing  spirit  that  Paul  adduces  the  example 
of  Jesus  who,  instead  of  aspiring  to  something  above  him  though 
he  might,  seeing  he  was  in  the  sphere  of  the  divine,  have  easily 
considered  the  being  on  an  equality  with  God  as  a  thing  to  which 
he  was  entitled,  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact  gave  up  what  he  already 
possessed  (existence  in  the  form  of  God)  and  accepted  something 
much  lower,  namely  existence  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  by  entering 
the  conditions  of  human  life ;  still  further,  in  this  lower  form  he 
still  manifested  the  same  self-abnegating  quality  by  becoming 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  The  whole  point 
and  force  of  the  argument  is  seen  in  what  Jesus  Christ  did  actually 
do  in  contrast  with  what  he  might  have  done.  The  other  inter- 
pretation does  not  fit  the  practical  purpose  nearly  so  well.*" 

With  reference  also  to  Warfield's  treatment  of  Col.  2:19,  it  must 
be  said  that  he  does  not  weigh  opposing  interpretations.  He  applies 
words  spoken  of  the  exalted,  glorified,  personal  Redeemer,  to  the 
preexistent  Christ  defined  as  the  impersonal  divine  Logos.  That 
is  to  say,  our  author  seems  determined  to  make  of  the  Hebrew- 
Christian  thinker,  an  Alexandrine  philosopher.*^ 

As  for  the  contention  that  the  equation  xupioq=mn''  (Oeo?)  may 
be  legitimately  written,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  Professor  War- 
field's  confidence  in  view  of  the  careful  studies  of  Case  and  Bacon.*^ 

^e.  g.  B.  Weiss,  Pfleiderer,  Schmidt. 

="  Ibid,  p.  348. 

*»Cf.  B.  Weiss,  Th.  N.  T.,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  100-101. 

«  Cf.  T.  K.  Abbott.  Int.  Crit.  Com.  in  loc.  Also  B.  Weiss,  B.  Th.  of  the  N. 
T.,  Vol.  ii,  103-104. 

*=>  Shirley  J.  Case.  The  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  1907.  pp.  151-161. 
The  term  xugiog  is  a  title  of  relation  and  connotes  the  unique  authority  of  the 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OP    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  43 

We  can  understand  this  procedure  as  that  of  a  dogmatician  and 
apologete,  but  not  as  that  of  an  exegete.  Starting  out,  as  he  does,  with 
the  assumption  that  the  doctrine  of  the  "Two  Natures"  is  the  key 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  biblical  teaching  concerning 
Christ's  person,  it  would  be  strange  if  he  did  not  unlock  all  diffi- 
cult passages  with  it.*^  In  two  or  three  instances,  indeed,  in  the 
article  mentioned,  he  frankly  terminates  the  debate  by  the  arbitrary 
assertion  that  Paul  held  the  doctrine,  (e.  g.  pp.  347,  footnote,  352, 
353)  which  is,  of  course,  the  very  question  in  debate. 

In  concluding  our  examination  of  Warfield's  usage  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, we  may  profitably  glance  into  one  of  his  recent  polemic 
articles.  We  have  seen  how  much  he  can  make  of  scripture  passages 
in  support  of  a  doctrine  he  wishes  to  maintain.  We  shall  now  see 
how  little  he  can  make  of  them  when  they  are  used  to  support  a 
practice  distasteful  to  him  and  contrary  to  the  custom  of  his 
religious  communion.  In  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  Oct. 
1911,  he  argues  against  the  claim  that  the  New  Testament  supports 
any  particular  view  as  to  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism.** 

"No  doubt  all  perplexity  would  be  at  an  end  if  the  New  Testa- 
ment prescribed  a  mode  of  baptism.  But  so  would  be  at  an  end  that 
evangelical  freedom  for  which  Christ  has  set  us  free.  We  should  so 
far  be  entangled  again  in  a  joke  of  bondage  and  who  knows  how 
little  leaven  it  would  take  to  leaven  the  whole  lump." 

"To  say  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  prescribe  a  mode  of 
baptism  is  much  to  understate  the  matter.  It  does  not  even  suggest 
one  mode  as  preferable  perhaps  to  another.  It  does  not  so  describe 
any  instance  of  baptism  as  to  show  interest  in  hoAv  it  was  performed, 
or  tempt  us  to  look  upon  it  as  an  example  having  normative  value 


exalted  Jesus  over  his  people.  It  conveys  no  metaphysical  meaning  and  is  not 
the  equivalent  of  nin"'Oi'  fteog-  B.  W,  Bacon,  Harvard  Theological  Review, 
April  1,  1911. 

■^  Concerning  the  logical  and  psychological  difficulties  involved  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Two  Natures— and  Warfield  admits  that  the  mystery  is  very  deep— (com- 
pare Am.  Jrnl.  of  Theol.,  Oct.  1911,  p.  564)  it  is  not  the  place  of  this  inquiry  to 
treat.  A  recent  writer  has  maintained  that  upon  AVarfield's  presentation  it  is 
not  merely  a  mystery  but  a  contradiction.  E.  A.  Cook,  American  J.  of  T.,  Apr. 
1912,  pp.  268-275. 

**  The  entire  Article  embraces  pp.  641-660  and  should  be  read  in  connection 
with  this  discussion. 


44  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OP   SCRIPTURE 

and  he  who  affirms  of  any  particular  way  of  baptizing  that 

it,  and  it  alone,  is  valid  baptism,  has  an  immense  b^^rden  of  proof 
resting  on  his  shoulders.  He  can  produce  no  justification  of  his 
affirmation  from  the  New  Testament  in  the  way  of  either  express 
assertion  or  authoritative  example,  or  unambiguous  implication. 
And  is  it  not  a  sound  Protestant  principle  that  only  the  Holy  Spirit, 
speaking  in  the  Scriptures  has  the  right  authoritatively  to  order  the 
things  of  the  house  of  God." 

Now,  if  Warfield  were  arguing  on  behalf  of  some  doctrine  he 
wished  to  defend,  and  the  Scriptures  permitted  it,  his  first  appeal 
would  be  to  lexicography.  His  confidence  in  the  very  words  of 
Scripture  would  lead  him  to  press  philological  details.  Not  so  in  the 
present  instance.  He  talks  of  modes  of  baptism,  of  one  mode  as 
preferable  to  another,  ignoring  the  possibility  that  the  very  word 
rendered  baptism  might  have  been  so  unambiguous  as  to  have  settled 
the  distinctive  point  of  the  action  contemplated.  It  seems  not  to 
occur  to  him  that  a  description  of  "any  instance  of  baptism"  was, 
perhaps,  rendered  superfluous  by  the  very  connotation  of  the  term. 
If  there  were  modes  of  baptism  we  might  expect  some  indication  of 
the  fact  in  the  New  Testament,  but  if  baptism  was  a  perfectly  defi- 
nite action,  we  should  expect  just  what  we  have,  namely,  no  raising 
of  the  question.  When  "Warfield  affirms  that  the  New  Testament 
indicates  no  preference  for  one  mode  of  baptism  over  another  or 
supports  no  claim  for  the  exclusive  validity  of  one  mode  as  against 
others  he  is  perfectly  correct.  The  New  Testament  is  wholly  silent 
upon  the  whole  burning  question  of  the  baptismal  controversy,  for 
the  reason  that  the  fuel  for  it  was  not  yet  prepared  or  ignited.  But 
if  he  maintains  that  the  New  Testament  affords  no  clear  and  decisive 
indication  as  to  what  the  action  of  baptism  was  in  the  primitive 
Christian  community,  he  takes  issue  with  the  vast  majority  of 
New  Testament  scholars. 

Before  passing  to  his  exegesis  of  the  scripture  texts  usually  held 
to  support  immersion,  we  may  advert  to  Warfield 's  anti-legalism. 
Does  he  not  betray  his  essential  legalism  in  admitting  that  if  the 
New  Testament  prescribed  a  mode  or  gave  clear  and  unambiguous 
examples,  we  would,  as  Christians,  be  compelled  to  follow  that  mode  ? 
Are  not  those  thinkers  less  legalistic  who,  while  admitting  that  the 
New  Testament  clearly  indicates  only  immersion  as  the  external  act 
of  baptism,  yet  maintain  that  there  are  deeper  principles  clearly 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  45 

taught  in  the  New  Testament  absolving  us  from  slavish  dependence 
upon  forms  due  to  local  and  temporal  conditions  ? 

At  the  very  beginning,  Warfield  sets  aside  all  the  references  to 
baptism  in  the  gospels,  except  that  of  ]\[at.  28:19-20,  upon  the 
grounds  that  they  refer  to  the  baptism  of  John,  or  to  Jewish  lus- 
trations, or  are  used  metaphorically.  Even  outside  the  gospels,  his 
exclusion  leaves  comparatively  few  references  to  Christian  baptism. 
In  this  exclusion  our  author  betrays  his  fatal  weakness  as  an  exegete. 
He  proposes  to  ignore  the  bearing  of  the  very  history  out  of  which 
Christian  practice  arises,  and  he  seems  to  overlook  the  fact  that 
metaphors  might  conceivably  have  very  definite  reference  to  Christ- 
ian baptism  as,  in  some  cases,  most  commentators  would  agree  is  the 
fact. 

Warfield 's  treatment  of  Mat.  28:19-20  is  very  instructive  for 
our  purpose.  It  will  be  remembered  how  exceedingly  detailed,  al- 
most to  the  point  of  Rabbinism,  was  his  exposition  of  the  text  when 
he  was  using  it  for  the  purposes  of  his  Christology  and  Trinitar- 
ianism.  Now  notice  how  he  minimizes  it  in  relation  to  baptism, 
something  in  which  he  has  no  dogmatic  interest  and  against  the  im- 
portance of  which  he  is  arguing.  ' '  There  is  but  one  mention  of  the 
Christian  rite  in  the  Gospels,  namely  Mat.  28  :19,  in  which  the  risen 
Lord  sends  forth  his  followers  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  inci- 
dentally adding  that  the  disciples  ivJien  made,  were  to  be  baptized 
and  instructed."  (italics  mine).  But  if  ^aTcxii^ovte?  x.  t.  X.  was 
added  as  a  mere  incidental  to  the  command  to  make  disciples,  and 
essentially  to  complete  their  making,  then  the  words  following  and 
depending  upon  ^aTCTtS^ovxsi;  are  also  incidental,  and  the  tremendous 
baptismal  formula  with  its  singular  to  6vo[Aa  upon  which  Professor 
Warfield  lays  such  emphasis  appears  as  an  afterthought.  If  Doctor 
Warfield  wishes  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  text  as  it  stands, 
and  if  he  is  true  to  his  theory  of  Inspiration  in  its  bearing  upon 
interpretation,  he  cannot  deal  with  it  so  capriciously  as  he  does.*^ 

■^  Especially  instructive  in  this  connection  is  Professor  Warfield's  statement 
that  "the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture  is  true  and  being  true  is  fundamental  to 
the  adequate  interpretation  of  Scripture."  Pres.  Review,  Apr.  1881,  p.  227.  In  a 
personal  letter  to  the  writer  and  replying  to  the  question  as  to  just  how  the  doc- 
trine of  inspiration  is  related  to  interpretation,  Professor  Warfield  says  that 
"confidence  in  the  details  of  the  text  before  him  necessarily  affects  the  work  of 
the  interpreter.  An  interpreter  dealing  with  a  text  in  which  he  has  little  confl- 
dence,  will  not  press  details,  as  will  one  who  knows  what  he  has  before  him  to 


46  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

Meyer,  in  whose  exegesis  Warfield  seems  to  place  great  confidence, 
(see  note  below)  comments  upon  the  clause  under  consideration  as 
follows — "  ^ocKzKovxzq  %.  x.  X.  in  which  the  [xaG-^Teusiv  is  to  be  con- 
summated, not  something  that  must  be  done  after  the  [xa6Y]T£uffaTe."*® 
Of  course  the  present  tendency  of  textual  criticism  is  toward  regard- 
ing the  clause  in  question  as  incidental  in  a  far  more  serious  sense 
than  Warfield  means,  but  it  is  not  supposable  that  this  has  affected 
his  confidence  in  the  text  with  reference  to  ^axTiXovTSi;  any  more 
than  it  has  with  reference  to  to  ovopia. 

One  more  illustration  of  Warfield 's  exegesis  must  suffice.  He 
argues  that  in  Rom.  6 :4  and  Col.  2 :12  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  man- 
ner of  baptism.  "It  is  the  spiritual  experience  of  one  who  is  in 
Christ  Jesus  which  is  adverted  to,  and  baptism  is  mentioned  only  as 
the  outward  act  by  which  the  union  of  the  soul  in  the  Christ  is 
marked."  (p.  649)  "Paul  is  not  appealing  in  it  (Rom.  6:3-4)  to 
the  symbolism  of  the  external  rite :  so  far  from  implying  that  the 
symbolism  of  the  external  rite  was  burial  and  resurrection  with 
Christ,  he  clearly  betrays  that  he  knew  of  no  such  symbolism  in  it." 
(p.  651)  "It  is  only  by  formally  establishing  a  connection  be- 
tween baptism  and  the  death  of  Christ,  that  Paul  establishes  a  con- 
nection between  baptism  and  burial  with  Christ.  This  he  even 
labors  to  accomplish.  Wliy  should  he  make  all  this  round  about 
argument  to  connect  our  baptism  with  Christ 's  burial,  if  baptism  in 
its  very  mode  of  administration  was  vocal  with  this  connection." 
(ibid). 

Here  again  Warfield  is  in  conflict  mth  the  great  weight  of 
exegetical  authority.  There  is  practical  unanimity  of  opinion  that 
both  in  Romans  and  Colossians  the  figure  does  refer  to  the  external 
rite  of  baptism,  and  that  its  requirements  would  best  be  met  by 
immersion.*^  Godet  admits  that  it  might  be  met  by  a  partial  sub- 
mersion— i.  e.  standing  in  water  to  the  loins.  Aside,  however, 
from  exegetical  authority,  is  there  not  something  exceedingly 
labored  about  the  contention  that  Paul  "labors  to  accomplish  a 


be  safeguarded  in  its  authority  by  divine  influence The  minute 

exegesis,  say,  of  a  Westcott,  a  Lightfoot,  or  a  Meyer  presupposes  a  doctrine  of 
verbal  inspiration  which  requires  the  interpreter  exactly  to  reproduce  the 
thought  embodied  in  the  language." 

«  Com.  on  Matthew,  Eng.  Tr.,  ii,  p.  301,  302. 

"  So  Meyer,  Abbott,  Beet,  Sanday,  Headlam,  Plummer. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OP    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  47 

connection  between  baptism  and  burial  with  Christ,"  which  he  does 
only  by  ''first  establishing  a  connection  between  baptism  and  the 
death  of  Christ."    Attention  to  the  whole  passage  conveys  anything 
but  an  unusual  effort  on  Paul's  part.    In  vv.  2  and  3  we  have  two 
questions  addressed  by  Paul  in  characteristic  manner  to  his  readers, 
both  evidently  presupposing  negative  answers.     If  he  had  been 
seeking  to  establish  something  of  which  they  were  really  ignorant, 
he  would  not  have  asked  if  they  were  ignorant.*^     Immediately  after 
the  question,  the  negative  answer  having  been  presupposed,  the 
apostle  proceeds  to  the  conclusion.     Thus  in  two  short  verses  we 
have  with  almost  spontaneous  ease,  a  result  which  our  author  says 
Paul  labored  to  secure.     Furthermore,  in  the  Colossian  passage 
there  is  no  semblance  of  argument.    If  it  was  necessary  to  labor  on 
behalf  of  the  Roman  understanding,  why  was  it  unnecessary  on  be- 
half of  the  Colossians  ?     In  interpreting  Eom.  9  :5  and  Phil.  2 :5 
in  the  interest  of  his  Christology  we  saw  how  Doctor  "Warfield 
brought  Col.  2  :19  to  their  support.     Why  did  he  not  bring  Col.  2 :12 
totheaidof  Rom.  6:3-4? 

In  conclusion  we  may  record  the  fact  that  in  his  Christological 
constructions,  Warfield  pays  slight  regard  to  the  historical  environ- 
ment in  relation  to  which  New  Testament  conceptions  were  de- 
veloped. One  would  scarcely  know  from  his  writings,  except  in 
quotations  from  those  whom  he  opposes,  that  there  was  such  a  thing 
as  Jewish  Messianism  or  an  Apocalyptic  literature.  It  is  a  con- 
stant practice  of  the  theologians  with  whom  we  are  dealing  to 
ignore  the  historical  development  between  the  two  Testaments,  so 
far  as  it  may  be  considered  to  register  itself  in  the  New  Testament."^ 
Of  course  the  reason  for  this  lies  in  the  conception  of  Scripture  as  in 
itself  an  organic  unity  of  revelation  and  as  such  complete  and  self- 
interpreting. 

«Cf.  James  Denney,  The  Death  of  Christ,  p.  84.  "The  apostle  was  not 
saying  anything  of  startling  originality,  when  he  wrote  in  the  beginning  of  Rom. 
vi  'Know  ye  not  that  all  we  who  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized 
into  his  death?'  Every  Christian  knew  that  in  baptism  what  his  mind  was  di- 
rected to,  in  connection  with  the  blessing  of  forgiveness,  was  the  death  of 
Christ." 

«  Professor  Orr,  for  example,  makes  this  strange  remark,  "Apocalypse  in 
Scripture  is  not  to  be  explained  out  of  current  Jewish  apocalyptic  tendencies; 
conversely,  Jewish  Apocalypse  is  to  be  explained  from  the  Biblical  models." 
Revelation  and  Inspiration,  footnote,  p.  98. 


48  THE   NORMATIVE  USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

In  his  "Progress  of  Dogma"  (1901),  Professor  James  Orr  de- 
clares "that  while  the  scriptures  are  always  to  be  considered  the  ulti- 
mate test  of  theological  development,  j^et  inasmuch  as  all  systems 
equally  appeal  to  scripture,  there  is  need  of  a  tribunal  to  decide 
upon  this  appeal.  Such  tribunal  he  finds  in  the  history  of  dogmatic 
development  with  its  practically  consentient  body  of  doctrine  in  the 
great  church  creeds."  These  creeds  represent  the  "survival  of  the 
fittest"  in  doctrine  under  the  severest  possible  strain.^^  It  is,  then, 
under  the  guidance  of  this  "verdict  of  history,"  that  we  are  to 
approach  the  Scripture.  "It  is  easy  to  speak  of  appeal  to  the 
Scriptures  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  this  very  application  to 
Scripture  cannot  be  divorced  from  that  growing  insight  into  its 
plan  and  purpose — into  the  organic  unity  and  fundamental  harmony 
of  its  doctrinal  content — which  is  the  result,  partly,  indeed,  of  our 
improved  method  of  using  it,  but  partly  also  of  that  very  history  of 
dogma  which  we  propose  to  test  by  it.  We  are  more  dependent  on 
the  past  than  we  think  even  in  our  interpretation  of  Scripture ;  and 
it  would  be  as  futile  for  any  man  to  attempt  to  draw  his  system  of 
doctrine  at  first  hand  from  Scripture,  as  it  would  be  for  a  man  of 
science  to  draw  his  scientific  knowledge  direct  from  nature,  unaided 
by  textbooks,  or  the  laborious  researches  of  the  myriad  workers  in 
the  same  field.  "^^ 

In  the  light  of  these  statements  we  can  understand  how  Professor 
Orr  discovers  the  organic  unity  of  the  Scriptures — which  is  con- 
stituted by  God's  progressive  self -revelation,  which  he  equates  with 
the  gospel,  and  in  which  he  includes  the  whole  scheme  of  traditional 
orthodox  theology.  (Supra  p.  17)  He  discovers  it  in  the  creeds  of 
the  church  and  need  not  pursue  the  laborious  path  of  inductive  re- 
search to  discover  from  the  materials  of  Scripture  itself  what  man- 
ner of  unity  or  of  diversity  it  possesses.  He  forgets  that  the  historic 
dogmas,  so  far  as  they  were  professedly  based  upon  the  Scriptures, 
were  derived  by  a  method  of  study  and  exegesis  out  of  all  accord 
with  that  sanctioned  by  modern  scholarship,  and  he  overlooks  the 

6°  Op.  cit.,  pp.  14,  18,  19. 

^  Op.  cit.,  p.  15.  The  position  here  taken  by  Professor  Orr  would  seem  to  be 
perilously  near  if  not  identical  with  that  of  Roman  Catholicism.  The  Scriptures 
are  no  longer  sufficient  for  doctrine,  and  the  right  of  private  judgment  ig 
abrogated  by  appeal  to  the  history  of  dogma  as  "a  tribunal  before  which  the 
personal  equation  in  the  individual  judgment  is  cancelled",  (p.  17). 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 


49 


even  more  important  fact,  that  those  dogmas  were  cast  in  the 
terminology  and  thought  forms  of  a  philosophy  quite  remote  from 
the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  literature  to  the  content  of  which  they 
were  applied.  To  make  these  dogmatic  formulations,  therefore,  the 
instruments  of  interpretation  is  to  perpetuate  the  ancient  error, 
and  sin  against  our  modern  light. 

But  let  us  see  how  Orr's  theory  functions  in  the  interpretation 
of  scripture.  A  good  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  his  theory 
of  the  continuity  and  coherence  of  the  redemption  history  recorded 
in  Scripture  works  over  into  his  theology  is  found  in  his  identifi- 
cation of  the  "Angel  of  Yahwe"  in  the  Old  Testament  theophanies-^' 
with  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity.  "This  angel,  in  any  case, 
is  not  an  ordinary  angel,  hut  stands  in  a  peculiar  nearness  to 
Jehovah,  represents  him,  and,  as  far  as  words  can  do  it,  is  identi- 
fied with  him."''  "The  revelation  through  the  Angel  ..... 
points  to  a  real  distinction  in  the  nature  of  God  such  as  is  associated 
in  the  New  Testament  with  the  idea  of  the  Logos  or  Son."    "The 

objection  naturally  taken  to  this interpretation  is 

that  it  seems  to  read  back  into  the  early  stages  of  revelation  the  New 
Testament  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  In  reply  it  may  be  said  that  the 
question  is  not  so  much  one  of  doctrine  as  of  the  interpretation  of 
historical  facts.  We  cannot,  indeed,  legitimately  read  back  New 
Testament  ideas  into  these  early  narratives,  as  if  the  writers  pos- 
sessed, or  intended  to  convey,  a  developed  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
But  it  is  not  inadmissible,  in  interpreting  God's  earlier  revelation, 
to  use  any  light  that  comes  to  us  from  the  later;  and  if  later 
revelation  makes  clear  to  us,  as  it  does,  a  real  self-distinction  in  God, 
there  exists  no  reason  why  we  should  not  avail  ourselves  of  the  aid 
of  that  truth  here.  Oehler  seems  to  come  very  near  the  essence  of  the 
matter  when  he  sums  up  by  saying,  that  the  Malach  was  a  self- 
presentation  of  Jehovah  entering  into  the  sphere  of  the  creature, 
which  is  one  in  essence  with  Jehovah— and  is  yet  again  distinct 
from  him."^*  Upon  all  this  we  remark— That  the  Old  Testament 
writers  speak  of  this  "Angel  of  Jehovah"  as  they  do  is  not  the  only 

"Gen.  16:10-12;  18:13;  18:33;  22:11  ff.;  Ex.  23:20,  21,  etc. 

^  Revelation  and  Insinration,  p.  84. 

^*  Op.  cit.,  pp.  86,  87.  Cf .  also  "The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World," 
p.  305.  For  a  practically  identical  argument  in  more  extreme  form  on  the 
Slime  matter,  cf.  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  vol.  i,  p.  486. 


50  THE  NORMATIVE   USE   OF   SCRIPTURE 

pertinent  historical  fact  our  author  is  bound  to  consider  and  in- 
terpret. There  is  the  fact  of  the  predominant  monotheism  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  of  its  freedom  from  any  teaching  about  dis- 
tinctions in  the  divine  essence.  Before  permitting  himself  to  help  out 
the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  by  means  of  ideas  drawn 
from  the  New,  it  should  be  explained  as  far  as  possible  out  of  its  own 
circle  of  ideas,  and  in  relation  to  the  total  context  of  the  history  in 
which  it  is  vitally  implicated.  In  appealing  from  the  period  to 
which  these  narratives  are  assigned  to  the  New  Testament  era  and 
to  a  different  culture  world  for  interpretative  ideas  our  author 
destroys  the  possibility  of  understanding  the  real  history  in  which 
God's  revelation  is  contained.  It  is  really  more  a  question  of  doc- 
trine than  of  historic  fact.  Instead  of  the  historical  facts  requiring 
the  explanation  given,  his  theory  of  the  unity  of  biblical  revelation 
requires  him  to  explain  the  references  to  the  "Angel  of  JehovaJi" 
by  the  Logos  conception,  or  the  Trinity.^^ 

The  untenableness  of  the  theory  that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be 
interpreted  by  means  of  the  verdict  of  history  registered  in  the 
evangelical  creeds  is  seen  in  the  fundamental  oppositions  that  exist 
between  those  creeds  themselves.  Under  the  guidance  of  different 
dogmatic  formulae,  different  arrangements  of  Scripture  appear. 
This  fact  is  brought  out  very  clearly  by  Orr  himself  with  ref- 
erence to  a  doctrine  fundamental  to  the  Augustinian  system,  namely, 
that  of  Eternal  Retribution.  "What  chiefly  weighs  with  many  in 
creating  dissatisfaction  with  the  current  church  view  is  not  so  much 
special  texts  of  Scripture,  as  rather  the  general  impression  produced 
upon  the  mind  by  the  whole  spirit  and  scope  of  the  gospel  revelation. 
Starting  mth  the  character  of  God  as  Christ  reveals  it;  with  the 
fact  of  the  Incarnation;  with  the  reality  and  breadth  of  the  atone- 
ment; with  the  glimpses  given  into  the  issues  of  Christ's  work,  the 
feeling  is  produced  in  every  thoughtful  mind,  that  the  sweep  of 
the  great  scheme  of  Incarnation  and  Redemption  cannot  be  ex- 

^^  Cf.  Liddon's  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  49,  52.  "There  are  occult  references 
to  this  doctrine  (the  deity  of  Christ)  which  we  are  not  likely  to  detect,  unless 
while  seeking  them,  we  are  furnished  with  an  exegetical  principle  such  as  was 
that  of  the  organic  unity  of  Scrijiture  as  understood  by  the  early  church." 

The  above  paragraph  in  the  text  is  written  not  to  prove  Orr's  practice  in- 
consistent with  his  theory,  but  to  illustrate  the  weakness  of  the  theory.  The 
argument  indicates  how  a  pseudo-historical  theory  of  Revelation  makes  im- 
possible the  application  of  a  genuine  historical  method  of  interpretation. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE  51 

hausted  in  the  comparatively  meager  results  wliich  we  see  springing 
from  it  here. '  '^*^  But  Calvinistic  theologians  approaching  the  Scrip- 
tures under  the  guidance  of  the  Westminster  Confession  do  not  ob- 
tain any  such  general  impression  from  the  whole  spirit  and  scope 
of  the  gospel  revelation.  Hodge,  for  example,  does  not  start  with 
the  character  of  God  as  Christ  reveals  it.  The  fact  of  the  Incarna- 
tion did  not  mean  to  him  just  what  it  does  to  Orr.  The  latter  did 
not  derive  his  view  of  Incarnation  with  its  results  from  the  Scrip- 
tures by  the  help  of  any  of  the  historic  creeds.  Doctor  Hodge  by 
the  help  of  the  Westminster  Confession  found  in  Scripture  a  scheme 
of  doctrine  that  required  Eternal  Retribution  more  decisively  than 
the  general  impression  of  which  Orr  speaks  requires  its  exclusion. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Orr  here  suggests  a  method  of  interpreta- 
tion very  different  from  that  which  we  have  heretofore  found  illus- 
trated, namely,  judging  specific  statements  in  the  light  of  the 
general  tenor  of  the  Scripture  revelation.  According  to  Hodge  and 
his  school,  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  viz.,  our  theology,  must  be 
so  constructed  as  to  make  permanent  place  for  all  Scripture  state- 
ments of  doctrine.  We  must  infer  that  Orr  means  something  differ- 
ent, namely  that  the  essential  truth  of  the  revelation  of  God  given 
in  Scripture  and  culminating  in  Jesus'  incarnation  and  work  may 
be  disengaged  from  temporary  and  perhaps  foreign  accretions  that 
have  become  involved  with  the  revelation.  He  is,  however,  very 
timid  in  the  application  of  the  view  he  suggests.  Even  in  con- 
nection with  his  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution  he  makes 
it  plain  that  his  working  theory  is  not  so  free  as  his  suggestion  would 
imply.  He  really  holds  in  effect  that  the  Bible  teaches  only  what  it 
says  in  specific  statements  upon  any  given  subject.  The  whole  spirit 
and  scope  of  the  gospel  revelation  is  not  to  be  urged  with  regard  to 
any  matter  upon  which  the  Bible  furnishes  specific  statements  for 
or  against."^ 

In  conclusion,  attention  is  called  to  Orr's  theological  system  in 
which  we  obtain  a  general  idea  of  the  use  of  Scripture  to  which 
he  is  committed.  As  set  forth  in  his  Kerr  Lectures,  Christianity  in- 
volves a  view  of  God  and  the  world.'^^     This  view  centers  in  the 

"CVGW,  p.  389. 

"  CVGW,  pp.  390-397. 

^  Although  in  form  these  lectures  are  Apologetic  yet  they  are  intended  by 
Orr  to  represent  a  positive  construction  of  tlie  entire  system  of  Christian 
doctrine.    Cf.  pp.  3,  4. 


52  THE   NORMATIVE   USE   OF   SCRIPTURE 

Incarnation  which  is  the  determining  conception,  illuminating  and 
transforming  every  other  doctrine.  It  involves  a  definite  view  of 
God,  of  Man,  of  Sin,  Redemption,  the  purpose  of  God  in  Creation 
and  History,  and  a  view  of  human  destiny.  Doctor  Orr's  whole  view 
of  Christianity  and  therefore  of  the  teaching  of  Scripture  will  de- 
pend upon  his  conception  of  the  Incarnation.  The  supreme  test 
of  the  Scriptural  character  of  his  theology  will  lie  in  the  nature  and 
derivation  of  his  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  By  the  Incarnation  he 
understands  that  Jesus  Christ  "was  not  mere  man,  but  the  eternal 
Son  of  God — a  truly  Divine  Person — who  in  the  fullness  of  time  took 
upon  him  our  humanity  and  who,  on  the  ground  that  in  him  as  man 
there  dwells  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  is  to  be  worshiped 
and  trusted  even  as  God  is.  "^^  The  divine  character  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  understood  by  Orr  in  the  strict  sense  required  by  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  the  Ontological  Trinity.''^ 

Now,  the  Incarnation,  so  conceived  is  said  by  our  author  to  be 
the  consentient  doctrine  of  the  whole  New  Testament.  Let  us  see 
how  he  deals  with  Scripture  to  establish  this. 

(a)  In  Lecture  II  he  applies  his  principle,  that  the  history  of 
dogma  by  showing  us  what  views  have  survived,  establishes  for  us 
a  principle  of  Scripture  interpretation.  He  claims  to  show  that 
lower  views  of  Christ  than  that  taken  in  the  creeds  of  the  church 
have  been  untenable. 

(b)  "With  this  verdict  of  history  he  comes  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  New  Testament  literature  which  he  takes  up  in  the  following 
order.  First,  he  inquires  what  view  of  Christ's  person  was  held  in 
the  apostolic  age,  as  throwing  light  upon  Christ's  own  claims. 
Second,  he  interrogates  the  Synoptic  gospels  to  learn  whether  the 
testimony  of  the  apostles  is  corroborated  by  the  self-consciousness 
of  Jesus.  Needless  to  say  he  finds  just  what  the  verdict  of  history 
led  him  to  expect.  The  general  regard  in  which  Jesus  was  held  from 
the  very  first,  on  the  ground  of  his  resurrection  and  ascension  is  held 
to  imply  that  he  was  no  mere  man  but  a  supernatural  personage. 
He  overlooks  the  possible  alternative  that  Jesus  might  have  been  re- 
garded as  a  "man  approved  of  God"  endowed  by  God  with  power 
to  perform  wonderful  works,  raised  from  the  dead  and  glorified  at 
God's  right  hand,  without  the  supernatural  preexistent  character 

^  Op.  cit.,  pp.  4,  5. 
«"  Ibid,  pp.  38,  54. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  53 

being  applied  to  him.  Though  Orr  admits  the  early  chapters  of  Acts 
to  ' '  contain  little  or  no  dogmatic  teaching  on  the  origin  or  constitu- 
tion of  Christ's  person",  yet  he  holds  that  these  undogmatic  repre- 
sentations furnish  the  data  or  premises  from  which  all  the  positions 
of  the  Christology  of  the  Epistles  can  be  deduced.''^  He  makes  much 
of  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  represented  as  being  the  Judge  of  the  "World. 
This  he  thinks  implies  the  supernatural  dignity  of  his  person  and 
even  involves  essentially  divine  attributes,  e.  g.  Onmiscience.  A 
little  attention  to  current  Messianic  ideas  in  Apocalyptic  literature 
and  even  in  the  New  Testament  itself  would  have  shown  him  that  the 
judging  function  was  thought  of  as  a  conferred  prerogative  and  one 
for  the  exercise  of  which  corresponding  powers  must  also  be  be- 
stowed.^- He  finds  Paul  and  John  to  be  in  perfect  accord  in  their 
Christology;  contemptuously  rejects  the  "Heavenly  Man"  theory; 
finds  both  Paul  and  the  writer  of  the  Hebrew  letter  assuming  that 
their  Christology  is  that  which  is  current  among  their  readers ;  and 
gives  the  title  /.upto?  a  meaning  equivalent  to  essential  deity. 

Coming  next  to  the  Synoptic  gospels  he  finds  the  claims  of  Christ, 
his  works  and  his  character  all  to  bear  out  the  view  contained  in  the 
other  New  Testament  literature  and  states  the  resultant  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation  which  alone  meets  the  New  Testament  facts  to  be 
' '  the  entrance  of  a  Divine  Person  into  the  human  nature. '  "'^ 

But  we  do  not  come  to  the  marrow  of  Orr's  view  of  Incarnation 
tiU  we  see  what  is  involved  in  it  for  his  theological  thinking.  It  in- 
volves the  fact  that  God  and  man  are  naturally  akin,  otherwise  the 
incarnation  would  have  been  impossible.  The  old  dualism  between 
God  and  the  world  is  overcome — the  divine  and  the  human  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  two  opposed  essences.  "A  union  between  God 
and  man  is  seen  to  be  possible,  to  the  intimacy  of  which  no  limits  can 
be  set — which,  indeed,  only  reaches  its  perfection  when  it  becomes 
personal.  The  Incarnation  has  not  only  this  doctrine  of  man  as  its 
presupposition,  it  is,  besides,  the  highest  proof  of  its  truth,  "^* 

We  would  here  point  out  that  the  author  adopts  a  conception  as 
the  corollary  of  his  doctrine  of  incarnation  that  accords  not  at  all 
with  the  presupposition  of  the  Chalcedonian  creed.     That  symbol, 

"  Op.  cit.,  p.  262. 

«Cf.  Jno.  5:22,  27-30. 

"Op.  cit.,  p.  279. 

•^  Chr.  V.  of  God  and  the  World,  p.  143. 


54  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

whose  Christology  Warfield  assures  us  is  only  "a  very  perfect 
sjTithesis  of  the  biblical  data,"  rests  upon  "a  philosophical  view 
of  God  which  separates  him  from  the  world  as  a  being  of  totally 
different  nature  from  man."«-^  Surely  Warfield,  or  Orr  must  be  un- 
biblical  concerning  the  Incarnation. 

With  this  view  of  the  nature  of  man  and  his  relation  to  God 
gained  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  Orr  goes  on  to  consider 
such  questions  as  the  world,  its  creation  and  relation  to  man ;  sin  and 
the  disorder  of  the  world  (the  connection  between  sin  and  death)  ; 
human  immortality;  the  purpose  of  God  in  the  creation  and  re- 
demption of  man;  the  divine  permission  of  sin.  Since  man  is 
essentially  akin  to  God,  being  made  in  the  divine  image,  he  is  the 
highest  being  in  nature.  The  world  and  all  it  contains  are  therefore 
produced  ex  nihilo  and  with  supreme  reference  to  man.  Sin  is  the 
perversion  by  man  of  his  true  and  normal  being  as  a  child  of  God 
and  the  setting  up  of  a  false  independence.  Its  effect  is  a  sub- 
version of  the  true  relation  of  the  natural  and  spiritual,  and  a 
frustration  of  the  whole  order  of  nature  which  through  its  solidarity 
with  man  suffers  on  account  of  his  sin.  Redemption  is  to  counteract 
all  these  effects  of  sin  including  death.  Immortality  consists  in  the 
everlasting  life  of  man  as  a  compound  being  of  soul  and  body.  Re- 
demption, therefore,  is  of  the  whole  man,  and  necessitates  the  re- 
union of  soul  and  body  at  the  resurrection.  All  these  positions  Orr 
claims  to  establish  as  against  Naturalism  by  reason  and  Science,  and 
to  commend  to  Christian  faith  from  the  Scriptures.  In  each  in- 
stance he  comes  to  Scripture  with  his  exegetical  result  determined 
beforehand. 

Strong's  theology,  according  to  his  own  claim,  is  described  from 
two  foci.  The  first  of  these  is  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  revealing  and 
creative  agency  whereby  he  is  in  natural,  organic  relation  with 
humanity  and  all  Creation,  and  whereby  his  historical  mission  is 
necessitated,  justified  and  consummated.^*'  The  second  is  the  doc- 
trine of  Divine  Perfection  in  which  the  Holiness  of  God  is  held 
to  be  the  preeminent,  or  fundamental  attribute,  and  upon  which  is 
grounded  the  nature  and  necessity  of  the  Atonement. '^^  ' '  The  decla- 
ration that  '  Christ  is  the  Lamb  of  God  slain  from  the  foundation  of 

»Vide  Warfield,  Art.  Cit.  Am.  J.  Theol.,  V.  15. 
««  Systematic  Theol.,  I,  109,  110. 
"  Ibid,  296  ff. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  55 

the  world'  implies  the  existence  of  a  principle  in  the  divine  nature 
which  requires  satisfaction,  before  God  can  enter  upon  the  work  of 
redemption.  That  principle  can  be  none  other  than  holiness.  "*^^ 
God's  holiness,  then,  binds  Him  to  punish  sin,  but  on  the  other  hand, 
Christ,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  He  created  all  things  including 
humanity,  is  in  natural  union  with  man  and  must  share  in  his 
punishment.  In  these  two  doctrines,  however,  we  do  not  yet  have 
the  master  key  to  the  whole  divine  system  of  doctrine.  That  is  found 
in  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity,"^  which  he  claims  is  a  clearly  revealed 
doctrine  of  Scripture  though  inscrutable. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  locate  the  center  of  Strong's  theological 
system  on  account  of  his  apparently  diverse  statements.  In  the 
preface  of  his  Systematic  Theology  he  says,  ' '  That  Christ  is  the  one 
and  only  revealer  of  God,  in  nature,  in  humanity,  in  history,  in 
science,  in  Scripture,  is  in  my  judgment,  the  key  to  theology.  "^^^ 

But  what  Christ  is  it  that  he  has  in  mind,  in  this  statement? 
Is  it  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  the  Christ  who  taught  the 
Twelve,  the  Christ  who  founded  the  Kingdom  of  God?  No,  he  has 
in  mind  the  Cosmic  Christ,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity.  In 
fact,  without  the  presupposition  of  the  fully  developed  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  he  would  never  have  discovered  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
which  he  regards  as  the  key  to  theology.  "The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  taken  for  granted,  as  well  as  the  peculiar  office  of  the 

second  person  of  the  Trinity  as  the  revealer  of  God 

Since  Christ  is  the  principle  of  revelation  in  God,  we  may  say  that 
God  never  thought  said  or  did  anything  except  through  Christ  .  . 
.  .  .  Creation  is  therefore  the  work  of  Christ."'^  It  is  evident 
that  Strong  in  grounding  his  doctrine  of  Christ  in  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  not  primarily  appealing  to  the  Scriptures 
but  is  assuming  the  Scripturalness  of  that  doctrine.  The  test  of  his 
Christology  will  lie  in  the  strength  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity— 
whether  it  is  philosophically  thinkable,  and  whether  it  has  a  basis  in 
Scripture.  He  has  truly  said  that  the  "doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
the  key  to  all  other  doctrines,"  and  if  it  is  not  contained  in  the 
Scriptures,  any  interpretation  of  them  in  its  light  will  result  in  a 
theology  which  can  by  no  stretch  of  logic  be  called  biblical. 

"  Ibid,  297,  298. 

«•  Ibid,  304. 

'"  Ibid,  p.  vii. 

"  Ethical  Monism,  p.  1. 


56  THE  NORMATIVE  USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

What  then  is  Strong's  conception  of  the  Trinity?  He  informs  us 
in  six  statements.  1.  In  Scripture  there  are  three  who  are  recog- 
nized as  God.  2.  These  three  are  so  described  in  Scripture  that  we 
are  compelled  to  conceive  of  them  as  distinct  persons.  3.  This  tri- 
personality  of  the  divine  nature  is  not  merely  economic  and  tem- 
poral, but  is  immanent  and  eternal.  4.  This  tri-personality  is  not 
tri-theism;  for  while  there  are  three  persons,  there  is  but  one 
essence.  5.  The  three  persons.  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  are 
equal.  6.  Inscrutable  yet  not  self-contradictory,  this  doctrine  fur- 
nishes the  key  to  all  other  doctrines.'^^  The  doctrine,  so  conceived, 
the  author  holds,  Avas  implicit  in  the  thought  of  the  apostles,  and  is 
involved  in  the  New  Testament  declarations  with  regard  to  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  though  it  was  not  formulated  by  the  New 
Testament  writers.  "The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  so  much 
heard,  as  overheard  in  the  Scriptures.  "^^  We  are  here  concerned  to 
see  how  Strong  overhears.  To  examine  all  the  texts  by  which  he 
claims  to  support  this  doctrine  is,  of  course,  out  of  the  question,  but 
we  may  note  some  instances  that  will  indicate  his  prevailing  exegeti- 
cal  attitude. 

(a)  Old  Testament  descriptions  of  God  are  applied  to  Jesus  by 
New  Testament  writers.  He  is  called  "Lord"  (xuptoq)  a  title  that 
they  could  not  have  used  as  the  designation  of  subordinate  and 
created  being.  ' '  James,  the  strongest  of  the  Hebrews,  uses  the  word 
'Lord'  freely  and  alternately  of  God  the  Father  and  of  Christ  the 
Son.  This  would  not  have  been  possible  had  not  James  believed  in 
the  community  of  essence  between  the  Son  and  the  Father. '  '"*  This 
is,  perhaps,  Hellenizing  the  thought  of  the  "strongest  of  the  He- 
brews" somewhat  unwarrantably. 

(b)  Christ  possesses  the  attributes  of  God.  "Self-existence: 
John  5:26" — "have  life  in  himself."  But,  the  author  fails  to  note 
that  the  context  says  the  Father  ''gave  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in 
himself.  "^= 

(c)  The  works  of  God  are  ascribed  to  Christ,  works  that  are 
such  in  nature  that  they  cannot  be  delegated,  but  are  character- 
istic of  Omnipotence,  e.  g.  the  judging  of  men  and  the  raising  of  the 

"  Op.  cit.,  p.  304. 

"Ibid,  305  (Quoted  from  Gore). 

"  Ibid,  p.  309. 

'=  Ibid,  309. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  57 

dead.  In  illustration  of  this  statement  the  author  cites  John  5  :27- 
29.'^''  overlooking  the  fact  that  in  the  context  Jesus  says  that  the 
Father  hath  "given  all  judgment  to  the  Son,"  that  he  gave  him 
"authority  to  execute  judgment  because  he  is  a  son  of  man."  The 
same  is  true  concerning  the  raising  of  the  dead  in  the  same  passage. 
It  is  included  in  Jesus'  statement,  "I  can  of  myself  do  nothing." 
The  whole  passage  contemplates  a  power  which  is  delegated.  It  is 
characteristic  of  Jesus  whole  attitude  toward  God  that  he  disclaims 
precisely  what  this  theologian  claims  for  him,  power  in  himself,  inde- 
pendent and  underived  from  the  Father. 

(d)  Creation,  Heb.  3  :3-4.  "He  that  built  all  things  is  God"= 
' '  Christ,  the  builder  of  the  house  of  Israel,  is  the  God  who  made  all 
things."" 

(e)  The  name  of  Christ  is  associated  with  that  of  God  upon  a 
footing  of  equality,  e.  g.,  in  the  baptismal  formula,  in  the  apostolic 
benedictions  etc.  The  texts  cited  do,  indeed,  show  that  the  names 
of  Christ  and  the  Father  are  associated  but  the  "footing  of  equal- 
ity" is  apparent  in  none  of  them.'®  This  curious  interpretation  of 
Eev.  22:16  is  soberly  suggested  in  support  of  Jesus'  Deity,  viz., 
"the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David "=" both  the  Lord  of  David 
and  his  son." 

(f)  Equality  with  God  is  expressly  claimed.  John  5:18 — "Called 
God  his  own  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God."'^  Strong 
here,  as  usual,  overlooks  the  exact  circumstances  and  fails  to  attend 
to  the  context.  Jesus  does  not  make  the  claim  to  be  equal  with 
God,  but  it  is  imputed  to  him  by  the  Jews.  In  the  passage  immedi- 
ately following  Jesus  seeks  to  correct  the  very  misapprehension  con- 
tained in  the  imputation. 

(g)  A  good  example  of  heroic  harmonization  is  the  following. 
John  14:28 — "the  Father  is  greater  than  I."  There  is  a  sub- 
jection, as  respects  order  of  office  and  operation,  which  is  yet  con- 
sistent with  equality  of  essence  and  oneness  with  God.  1  Cor.  15 :28 
— "then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subjected  to  him  that  did  sub- 
ject all  things  unto  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  This  must  be 
interpreted  consistently  with  John  17  :5 — ' '  glorify  thou  me  with 

•"Op.  cit,  310. 
'^Ibid,  310. 
"  Ibid,  312. 
^»Ibid,  313. 


58  THE  NORMATIVE  USE  OP   SCRIPTURE 

thine  own  self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
world  was. "  ^° 

(h)  The  oneness  of  essence  in  which  the  three  personal  sub- 
sistences participate  renders  possible  such  an  intercommunion  be- 
tween them  that  the  work  of  either  may  be  ascribed  to  the  others, 
and  the  manifestation  of  the  one  may  be  recognized  in  the  mani- 
festation of  the  others.  Illustrations :  Gen.  1 :1 — ' '  God  created. ' ' ; 
Cf.  Heb.  1:2  "through  whom  (the  Son)  he  made  the  worlds."  Our 
author  here  means,  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  Christ  that 
created  the  worlds.  God  the  Father  was  not  the  active  agency  in 
creation.  This  intercommunion  explains  the  occasional  use  of  the 
term  "Father"  for  the  whole  Godhead,  e.  g.,  Eph.  4:6 — "one  Grod 
and  Father  of  all,  who  is  over  all  and  through  all  (in  Christ),"  and 
"in  you  all  (by  the  Spirit)  ".  So  the  Lamb,  in  Rev.  5 :6,  has  "seven 
horns  and  seven  eyes,  which  are  the  seven  Spirits  of  God,  sent  forth 
into  all  the  earth '  '=' '  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  his  manifold  powers,  is 
the  Spirit  of  the  Omnipotent,  Omniscient  and  Omnipresent 
Christ.  "«^ 

(i)  The  Father  is  not  God  as  such;  for  God  is  not  only  Father 
but  also  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.  Each  of  these  titles  designates  the 
personal  distinction  which  forms  the  eternal  basis  for  a  particular 
self -rev  elation.  God's  Fatherhood  has  no  meaning  except  through 
Christ.  Even  that  natural  sonship  which  men  have  to  God  in  vir- 
tue of  the  fact  that  He  is  the  Author  and  Provider  of  their  natural 
life  as  mediated  through  Christ;  See  1  Cor.  8:6 — "One  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  through  him." 
This  text  is  a  little  unfortunate  for  the  writer's  purpose  since  it  is 
in  the  immediate  context  that  the  most  emphatic  affirmation  of 
Godhood  as  pertaining  peculiarly  to  the  Father,  is  to  be  found.^^ 

(j)  How  much  may  be  contained  in  a  single  text,  according  to 
our  theologian's  system  of  interpretation  is  seen  in  the  following. 
Rom.  11:36 — "For  of  him,  and  through  him  and  unto  him,  are  all 
things."  "Here  is  an  allusion  to  the  Father  as  the  source,  the  Son 
as  the  medium,  and  the  Spirit  as  the  perfecting  and  completing 
agent  in  God's  operations."®^ 

^  Ibid,  314. 
«^Ibid,  333. 
»'Syst.  Theol.,  I,  334. 
«»Ibid,  337. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  59 

(k)  "That  the  Sonship  of  Christ  is  eternal,  is  intimated  in 
Psalm  2:7.  "This  day  have  I  begotten  thee,"  is  most  naturally 
interpreted  as  the  declaration  of  an  eternal  fact  in  the   divine 

nature. '  '®* 

But  we  desist  from  further  illustration  of  President  Strong's 
* '  be-Scriptured  theology. ' '  We  have  seen  enough  to  be  sure  that  he 
has  taken  seriously  his  statement  that  ' '  seemingly  trivial  things  are 
to  be  explained  from  their  connection  with  the  whole." 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  Professor  James  Denney's 
alleged  inconsistency  in  his  use  of  Scripture  in  view  of  his  doctrine 
of  its  authority.    Garvie,  for  example,  says  that  Denney  "appeals 
to  the  language  of  Scripture  as  decisive  in  questions  of  theology, 
Avhether  or  not  that  language  finds  a  response  and  a  confirmation  in 
the  religious  consciousness,  or  Christian  experience."     He  points 
out  two  instances  to  support  his  charge.     "In  dealing  with  Jesus' 
words  about  the  glory  M^iich  he  had  mth  the  Father  before  the 
world  was,  he  dismisses  what  has  been  to  many  serious  thinkers  a 
great  difficulty  thus  briefly  and  boldly.    No  a  priori  assumptions 
about  the  necessity  of  a  purely  human  consciousness  to  which  such 
a  reminiscence  was  inconceivable,  and  no  exegetical  bewilderments, 
like  those  of  Wendt,   can  be  pleaded  against   words   so  plain." 
(Studies  in  Theology,  p.  62)  "In  expounding  the  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement,  great  stress  is  laid  on  the  fact  that,  according  to  Paul,  it 
was  Ood  'Who  made  Him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin'  (p  112). 
The  very  words  of  Scripture  are  used,  as  it  were,  to  coerce  human 
thought  and  we  therefore  turn  with  great  expectancy  to  the  Ninth 
lecture,  on  the  Holy  Scripture  to  see  what  proof  of  this  absolute 
authority  can  be  offered.    We  are  not  a  little  surprised  to  find  that 
it  is  the  much  despised  and  derided  subjectivity  which  is  the  basis 
of  the  authority  of  the  Bible.  "^^    It  is  only  fair  to  state,  however,  in 
connection  with  this  criticism,  that  as  regards  the  Atonement,  and 
in  the  very  definite  form  in  which  he  presents  it  in  his  earlier 
writings,  Denney  holds  it  to  be  itself  the  very  heart  of  the  New 
Testament  message  and  to  be  attested  by  the  Avitness  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  hearts  of  believers.     It  is  precisely  here  that  we  find  the 
difference  between  the  Denney  of  today  and  the  Denney  of  yester- 
day.    In  his  earlier  writings  he  identified  the  gospel  with  a  very 
^  Ibid,  340. 
«^  Garvie,  The  Christian  Certainty  amid  the  Modern  Perplexitj',  p.  342  f. 


60  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OP   SCRIPTURE 

definite  interpretation  of  the  significance  of  the  death  of  Christ 
in  relation  to  human  sin  and  salvation.  For  that  interpretation  he 
claimed  the  consentient  testimony  of  all  the  New  Testament  writings 
and  sought  to  make  good  the  claim  by  exegesis.  "The  death  of 
Christ  is  the  one  subject  in  relation  to  which,  least  of  all  is  it 
possible  to  urge  the  distinction  between  religion  and  theology. 
There  is  a  point  at  which  they  meet  and  are  inextricably  involved  in 
each  other,  and  that  point  is  the  cross  of  Christ  interpreted  as  the 
New  Testament  interprets  it."®*^  The  center  of  the  apostolic  theology 
which  is  also  the  apostolic  gospel  is  in  Denney's  opinion,  as  main- 
tained in  "Studies  in  Theology"  and  in  "The  Death  of  Christ,"  the 
"expiatory  significance  of  the  death  of  Christ. "^^  It  is  this  that 
' '  as  the  focus  of  revelation  is  also  the  key  to  all  that  precedes  . 
.  .  .  Scripture  converges  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement ;  it 
has  the  unity  of  a  consentient  testimony  to  a  love  of  God  which  bears 
the  sin  of  the  world.  How  this  is  done  we  do  not  see  clearly  till  we 
come  to  Christ,  or  till  he  comes  to  us ;  but  once  we  get  this  insight 
from  Him,  we  get  it  for  revelation  as  a  whole.  To  Him  bear  all  the 
Scriptures  witness ;  and  it  is  as  a  testimony  to  Him,  the  bearer  of 
sin,  the  Redeemer  who  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  us,  that  we  ac- 
knowledge them.  This  is  the  burden  of  the  Bible,  the  one  funda- 
mental omnipresent  truth  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  bears  mtness  by 
and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts.  This,  at  bottom,  is  what  we  mean 
when  we  say  that  Scripture  is  inspired."®^  In  describing  the 
Atonement  accomplished  in  the  death  of  Christ  Denney  uses  a  great 
variety  of  phrases  such  as  "bearing  sin,"  "submitting  to  the  death 
in  which  God's  condemnation  of  sin  is  expressed,"  "Underlying  the 
responsibility  and  receiving  the  consequences  of  sin,"  Jesus  "died 
our  death,"  etc.  He  does  not  say  expressly  that  Christ  took  upon 
him  the  guilt  and  penalty  of  our  sins,  but  that  he  "took  on  him 
the  consequences  of  our  sins."  While  there  has  been  much  differ- 
ence of  opinion  among  students  as  to  just  what  historical  theory 
of  Atonement  Professor  Denney's  view  most  nearly  resembles,  yet 
the  majority  would  probably  agree  that  in  its  earlier  presentations  it 
follows  Anselmic  lines.  There  is  also  a  tendency  among  theologians, 
since  the  appearance  of  his  later  volume,   "Atonement  and  the 

«« The  Death  of  Christ,  p.  vii. 

8'  Studies  etc.,  pp.  222,  223. 

^  Death  of  Christ,  pp.  313,  314.     Cf.  Studies  etc.,  pp.  107,  109. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE  61 

Modern  Mind, ' '  to  assign  him  to  a  different  school.    Warfield  thinks 
his  theory  essentially  that  of  Grotius,  and  says  concerning  it,  ' '  Sub- 
stitution is  taken  in  a  notably  lower  sense.    At  the  decisive  point 
men  are  their  own  Saviours.     This  may  be  very  gratifying  to  the 
modern  mind:  it  is  intolerable  to  the  Christian  heart. "^^    The  late 
Professor  G.  B.  Stevens,  comparing  Denney's  utterances  in  the  two 
earlier  volumes  with  those  of  "Atonement  and  the  Modern  Mind" 
says,  "Had  I  not  read  these  more  recent  utterances  of  Denney,  I 
should  have  classed  him  with  the  uncompromising  advocates  of  the 
post-Reformation  dogma In  view  of  this  recent  dis- 
cussion, however,  I  must  question  his  right  to  a  place  among  the  few 
remaining  representatives  of  the  theory  of  vicarious  punishment. '  '^" 
Mead,  however,  is  at  a  loss  how  to  take  Denney's  views,  and  says, 
"Upon  the  whole,  the  author  seems  to  incline  to  the  Anselmic 
theory,  but  shrinks  from  the  logical  consequences  of  it,  and  at- 
tempts to  cover  them  up  by  the  adoption  of  obscure  phraseology. '  '^' 
As  regards  Denney's  exegesis,  however,  in  his  earlier  volumes  we 
cannot  fail  to  see  that  he  is  quite  unduly  controlled  by  the  conviction 
antecedently  held   that   the   whole   New   Testament   contains   the 
Atonement  theory  in  the  form  stated  by  Paul,  or  at  least  that  all 
statements  relative  to  the  death  of  Christ  find  their  most  natural 
interpretation  in  that  theory.     Although  in  his  "Studies"  he  em- 
phasizes the  theological  authority  of  the  mind  of  Christ  as  it  can  be 
apprehended  in  the  gospels,  yet  when  he  comes  to  the  construction 
of  the  doctrine  that  is  "the  key  to  the  whole  New  Testament 
teaching"  instead  of  beginning  with  a  careful  investigation  of  the 
message  of  Jesus  in  its  total  content  and  proportions,  his  procedure 
is  as  follows.    First,  he  expounds  Paul,  since  he  is  most  explicit,  then 
Peter,  and  finally  as  a  judicious  addenda,  he  submits  a  few  words 
upon  the  bearing  of  the  gospels  on  the  subject.    The  very  order  in 
which  a  theologian  takes  up  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  ma- 
terials with  reference  to  a  given  subject  is  quite  significant  for  his 
dogmatic  interests.    In  the  ' '  Death  of  Christ ' '  he  passes  the  material 
in  review  in  the  familiar  order  of  modern  New  Testament  Theology, 
viz.,  Synoptics,  early  chapters  of  Acts,  Paul,  Hebrews,  John.    But 
it  seems  clear  that  the  order  of  treatment  is  to  make  no  difference  in 

*  Princeton  Theological  Review,  Oct.  1904. 
">  The  Doct.  of  Salv.,  p.  197. 
•^Irenic  Theol.,  p.  309. 


62  THE   NORMATR^   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

the  result,  since  the  study  is  to  be  one  of  texts,  without  reference 
to  the  large  sweep  of  Jesus  revelation  in  his  life,  and  in  his  teach- 
ing concerning  the  kingdom.  All  the  passages  which  can  be  under- 
stood with  reference  to  a  specific  meaning  in  the  death  of  Jesus,  are, 
by  ingenious  exegesis  brought  into  line  with  the  Pauline  teaching  in 
which  our  author  showed  himself  to  be  satisfied  and  convinced,  in 
his  previous  studies.    Let  us  attend,  now,  to  some  of  his  expositions. 

(a)  "The  New  Testament  everywhere,  in  all  its  books  and  all 
its  authors,  connects  forgiveness  with  the  death  of  Christ."  From 
Paul's  statement  1  Cor.  15:3  ff.  he  deduces  the  conclusion  that 
"there  was  no  gospel  known  in  the  primitive  church,  or  in  any  part, 
of  it,  which  had  not  this  for  its  foundation — that  God  forgives  our 
sins  because  Christ  died  for  them. ' '  Our  author  here  imports  into 
the  simple  statement,  "Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the 
Scriptures, ' '  the  further  doctrine  that  God  forgives  our  sins  because 
Christ  died  for  them  in  a  particular  sense,  and  implies  that  this 
was  in  Paul's  mind  and  the  minds  of  the  other  apostles  in  precisely 
the  same  form.  But  an  examination  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the 
Synoptic  gospels,  and  a  study  of  the  primitive  Christian  preaching 
in  Acts,  indicate  that  God  forgives  sin  only  when  men  repent  and 
turn  to  Him.  The  whole  mission  of  Jesus  and  not  specifically  his 
death  is  conceived  as  means  by  which  actual  deliverance  of  men 
from  their  sins  by  repentance  and  abandonment,  was  accomplished. 
Jesus  did,  indeed,  die  on  behalf  of,  or  for  the  benefit  of  the  guilty 
but  this  death  is  not  described  as  expiatory  in  the  literature  just 
named.'*- 

(b)  1  Peter  2:24;  3:18.  are  brought  into  line  with  Paul  with 
the  words,  ' '  Our  death  to  sin,  our  emancipation  from  it,  our  new 
life,  depend  on  this,  that  at  the  cross  our  sins  were  laid  on  the 
sinless  One.  That  any  real  meaning  can  be  given  to  these  words 
except  the  meaning  already  explained    (i.   e.   in  connection  with 

Paul's  teaching)    I  cannot  see In  what  way,  we 

ask  again,  can  the  death  of  the  righteous  be  an  advantage  to  the 
unrighteous,  in  virtue  of  its  relation  to  their  sins,  unless  the  divine 
condemnation  of  those  sins,  which  kept  them  at  a  distance  from  God, 
fall  on  the  righteous  and  be  exhausted  there  ?"^^  Needless  to  say, 
these  passages  do  by  no  means  shut  us  up  to  the  meaning  that  the 

"-Cf.  Burton  and  Smith,  The  Atonement,  Ch.  vii. 
»»  Studies  etc.,  pp.  118,  119. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  63 

author  indicates.  Both  passages  are  holding  up  the  sufferings  of 
Jesus  as  an  example  to  believers,  indicating  that  it  is  the  principle 
of  Jesus '  life  realized  or  illustrated  supremely  in  his  death  that  is  of 
importance,  and  not  some  exclusive  and  special  work  accomplished 
in  his  death.  Interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  total  context  these 
verses  lean  decidedly  toward  the  vital,  moral  theory,  rather  than 
toward  the  penal,  substitutionary  view.  No  one,  unless  he  were 
already  obsessed  by  the  expiatory  view,  would  find  it  here.  Our 
author,  indeed,  seems  to  feel  the  lack  of  conclusiveness  in  his  inter- 
pretation and  in  connection  with  it  he  suggests  an  interesting 
hermeneutical  principle  "A  mere  exegete  is  sometimes  tempted  to 
read  New  Testament  sentences  as  if  they  had  no  context  but  that 
which  stands  before  him  in  black  and  white ;  they  had  from  the  very 
beginning,  and  have  still,  another  context  in  the  mind  of  Christian 
readers,  which  it  is  impossible  to  disregard."®*  Properly  qualified, 
this  remark,  of  course  has  truth.  The  principle,  however,  must  not 
be  taken  as  exalting  the  context  in  the  minds  of  Christian  readers 
over  the  context  in  black  and  white,  as  important  in  interpretation. 
It  is  only  when  we  have  exhausted  every  reasonable  means  of  under- 
standing an  author  out  of  the  circle  of  his  own  expressed  ideas  in  a 
given  document,  are  we  justified  in  supplementing  by  an  assumed 
context  in  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  he  wrote.  Even  in  documents 
that  are  somewhat  apologetic  in  tone  we  may  easily  fail  to  estimate 
sufficiently  the  amount  of  positive  instruction  or  affirmation  that 
may  be  contained.  It  is  not  good  exegesis  to  appeal  from  the  text  of 
the  Scriptures  to  the  manner  in  which  the  people  might  have  under- 
stood, over  the  head  of  the  total  context  of  the  writer  from  whom  the 
text  is  taken.  Even  though  the  people  were  Christian,  they  were 
being  instructed  by  a  Christian  who  was  further  along  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Faith  than  they  were. 

(c)  Coming  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus  recorded  in  Mark.  10:45; 
14:24.,  he  says  that  these  are  at  least  congruous  with  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus'  death  which  he  has  been  urging.  The  first,  he  says,  pre- 
supposes that  the  "many  lives  are  forfeit  and  that  His  (Christ's) 
is  not ;  so  that  the  surrender  of  His  means  the  liberation  of  theirs. ' '®' 
Thus  the  substitutionary  idea  is  read  into  the  passage.  That  is, 
Denney  presses  the  figure  of  "Ransom,"  in  preference  to  seeking 

"Studies,  p.  119. 
"'  Ibid,  p.  122. 


64  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF  SCRIPTURE 

the  explanation  of  the  saying  in  the  context,  since  there  Jesus  death 
is  clearly  brought  into  line  with  the  principle  of  his  life,  namely, 
service,  whereas  the  author  is  concerned  to  maintain  a  special, 
unique,  objective  work  wrought  with  a  Godward  reference  in  the 
death  of  Jesus,  which  is  beyond  the  purpose  of  his  life.  For  con- 
firmation of  his  view  Denney  refers  to  another  saying  of  Jesus  in 
which  he  uses  a  term  of  kindred  meaning  but  in  a  wholly  different 
context,  namely  the  saying  Mark  8  :34  ff .  "It  is  clear  from  a  pass- 
age like  this  that  Jesus  was  familiar  with  the  idea  that  the  ^uyji  or 
life  of  man,  in  the  higher  or  lower  sense  of  the  term,  might  be  lost, 
and  that  when  it  was  lost  there  could  be  no  compensation  for  it,  as 
there  was  no  means  of  buying  it  back. '  '®^  This  looks  very  much  like 
learned  trifling.  What  the  passage  really  shows  with  reference  to 
the  mind  of  Jesus  is  that  he  was  tremendously  impressed  with  the 
value  of  the  higher  ethical  and  spiritual  life,  over  the  things  the 
temporal  and  material  world  could  offer.  It  is  pure  gratuity  to 
imagine  that  he  w^as  in  his  thought  pressing  the  figure  in  the  way 
Denney  intimates.  But  our  author  goes  still  farther  afield  to  find  a 
circle  of  ideas  that  may  serve  to  explain  Jesus '  meaning  in  line  with 
the  substitutionary  theory.  Psalm  49  :7  ff.  illustrates,  he  thinks,  the 
world  of  thought  in  which  the  mind  of  Jesus  moved.  "What  no 
man  could  do  for  his  brother,  namely,  give  God  a  ransom  for  him  . 
....  this  the  Son  of  Man  claims  to  do  for  many  and  to  do  so  by 
giving  his  life  a  ransom  for  them.'"*'  Thus,  the  interpretation  of 
our  author  would  represent  Jesus,  in  a  passage  pointing  to  his  own 
life  and  deeds  to  illustrate  a  principle  he  is  seeking  to  enforce  upon 
his  disciples,  as  having  in  mind  primarily  an  objective  deed  of 
Atonement  Godward  in  which  they  could  not  possibly  imitate  him 
or  have  fellowship  with  him.®^ 

Thus  Doctor  Denney  goes  through  the  Synoptic  gospels  dealing 
with  the  various  passages  in  the  way  that  has  been  indicated,  and 
which  misses  the  mark  of  true  interpretation  for  the  following  rea- 
sons. 

1.    His  is  a  process  of  selection  and  treatment  of  texts  from  a  dog- 
s'" Death  etc.,  42. 
»^  Ibid,  44. 
B»  Cf.  Stevens,  Doct.  Salv,  47-48,  51, 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  65 

matic  motive,  rather  than  the  historical  study  of  documents  accord- 
ing to  principles  of  scientific  interpretation.^^ 

2.  He  passes  over  the  great  and  outstanding  characteristics  of 
Jesus'  own  conception  of  his  work  in  relation  to  sin  and  righteous- 
ness. He  tries  to  explain  Jesus  out  of  obscure  and  doubtful  utter- 
ances about  his  death  rather  than  these  latter  out  of  his  clear 
teaching  concerning  his  great  work  in  founding  the  kingdom. 

3.  He  ignores,  or  overlooks  the  fact  that  in  contemporary  Jewish 
thought  sacrificial  ideas  had  small  place.  The  ritual  system,  indeed, 
persisted  as  a  part  of  statutory  religion,  but  no  philosophy  of  sacri- 
fice was  developed.  Against  this  statutory  regime  Jesus  was  in 
revolt,  and  his  sympathies  were  not  directed  toward  a  ritualistic 
interpretation  of  religion.  This  accounts  for  his  slight  use  of 
sacrificial  language,  and  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  what  he  did 
use  was  intended  to  convey  any  deep  theological  import.  It  was 
employed  by  way  of  figure.^"" 

In  all  that  has  been  said  regarding  Denney 's  theology  and  his  use 
of  Scripture  we  have  left  out  of  consideration  his  last  important 
volume,  "Jesus  and  the  Gospel."  In  this  book,  the  present  writer 
considers  that  Doctor  Denney  has  passed  beyond  and  out  of  the 
school  of  theological  thought  which  is  the  subject  of  this  investiga- 
tion. In  his  two  earlier  volumes  to  which  so  many  references  have 
been  made,  he  held  that  there  is  a  definite  doctrine  at  once  constitut- 
ing a  theology  and  a  gospel,  which  is  common  to  the  New  Testament 
writings  and  which  forms  the  key  to  biblical  interpretation.  That 
doctrine  was  practically  identified  with  Christian  faith,  and  w^as 
held  to  determine  the  correct  standpoint  from  which  to  construct  all 
other  doctrines,  even  that  of  the  person  of  Christ.  He  finds  much 
fault  with  those  theologians  who  make  the  Incarnation  the  ruling 
and  ordering  concept  in  theology,  intimating  that  the  motives  for 
this  are  speculative  rather  than  religious,  in  some  cases,  dogmatic  in 
other  cases.  But  from  whatever  reason  it  is  adopted  Denney  thinks 
it  leads  to  a  minimizing  of  all  that  is  said  in  the  New  Testament 

*°  For  a  truly  historical  and  scientific  exegesis  of  the  passages  in  the 
Synoptics,  bearing  on  Jesus  death,  See  Scott,  The  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah, 
pp.  230-244. 

100  Even  conservative  theologians  have  almost  all  abandoned  the  task  of 
conceiving  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  predominantly  after  any  of  the  partial 
analogies  suggested  by  Scripture  passages.  Cf.  Mead,  Irenic  Theology,  pp. 
304-315.  Terry,  Biblical  Dogmatics,  419  f.  Both  of  these  theologians  fail  to 
support  Denney. 


66  THE   NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

about  the  death  of  Christ  in  relation  to  sin.  "They  (the  passages) 
are  interpreted  emotionally  but  not  logically,  as  if  the  men  who  say 
the  strong  things  on  this  subject  in  the  New  Testament  had  said 
them  without  thinking  or  would  have  been  afraid  of  their  own 
thoughts.""^  In  the  list  of  theologians  who  make  the  error  mem- 
tioned  Denney  names  "Westcott,  and  Wilson.  It  is  manifest  from 
our  preceding  treatment  that  Doctor  Orr  and  President  Strong  might 
perhaps  have  been  included  in  his  list.  Among  the  reasons  he  urges 
against  such  exaltation  of  the  idea  of  Incarnation  over  the  Atone- 
ment are  these:  (1)  It  shifts  the  center  of  gravity  in  the  New 
Testament.  "The  Incarnation  may  be  the  thought  round  which 
everything  gravitates  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  in  the  theology  of  the 

ancient  Catholic  church but  that  only  shows  how  far 

the  first  ecclesiastical  apprehension  of  Christianity  was  from  doing 
justice  to  New  Testament  conceptions."  "Not  Bethlehem,  but  Cal- 
vary, is  the  focus  of  revelation,  and  any  construction  of  Christianity 
which  ignores  or  denies  this  distorts  Christianity  by  putting  it  out 
of  focus. "^*^-  (2)  The  tendency  to  put  the  doctrine  of  Incarnation 
into  the  primary  place  manifests  a  concern  in  metaphysical  rather 
than  moral  problems,  and  Scripture  has  only  a  secondary  interest 
in  metaphysical  questions.  ' '  The  incarnation,  when  it  is  not  defined 
by  relation  to  these  realities — ^in  other  words,  when  it  is  not  con- 
ceived as  the  means  to  the  Atonement,  but  as  a  part  of  a  specula- 
tive theory  of  the  world  quite  independent  of  man's  actual  moral 
necessities — can  never  attain  to  a  reality  as  vivid  and  prof ound.  "^^^ 
These  criticisms  while  not  equally  applicable  to  all  the  theologians 
who  make  the  Incarnation  the  determinative  principle  of  their 
theology,  are  nevertheless  valid,  from  the  point  of  view  of  Denney, 
against  all  since  none  of  them  regard  the  Atonement  as  the  end  to 
which  the  Incarnation  was  nothing  but  means.  They  all  give  to  the 
Incarnation  cosmic  significance.^"* 

"» The  Death  of  Christ,  p.  323. 

1°=  The  Death  of  Christ,  p.  324. 

"'  Ibid,  pp.  325,  326. 

*°*  Professor  Olin  Curtis,  who  regards  Professor  Denney  as  "one  who  beyond 
any  writer  of  our  day,  has  understood  the  apostle  Paul,  and  garnered  the  very 
life  of  the  New  Testament,"  is  even  more  emphatic  in  condemning  the  Incarna- 
tion theology.  "No  Christian  man  should  allow  any  touch  of  Hegelian  philosophy 
to  place  the  incarnation  in  the  divine  ideal,  in  the  normal  life  of  God;  for  so 
to  place  it  gives  it  cosmic  majesty  at  the  expense  of  its  intense  redemptional 
import."    The  Christian  Faith,  p.  237. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL   USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  67 

All  this  goes  to  show  Denney's  strong  dogmatic  interest  in  the 
Atonement  doctrine.  Now  notice  the  change  of  emphasis  in  his  later 
work,  and  the  wholly  undogmatic  spirit  in  which  he  writes.  It  is 
quite  impossible  to  identify  the  man  who  w^rote  "The  Death  of 
Christ"  with  the  author  of  such  statements  as  the  following.  "In 
all  the  great  types  of  Christianity  represented  in  the  New  Testament 
the  relations  of  God  and  man  are  regarded  as  profoundly  affected 
by  sin,  and  that  the  sense  of  a  common  debt  to  Christ  is  the  sense 
of  what  Christians  owe  Him  in  dealing  with  the  situation  w'hich 
sin  has  created.  This  may  not  involve  either  a  formally  identical 
Christology,  or  a  formally  identical  doctrine  of  Propitiation,  in 
every  part  of  the  New  Testament. "^°^  "We  are  bound  to  Him 
(Christ),  in  that  wonderful  significance,  that  unique  and  incom- 
municable power  which  he  has  to  determine  all  our  relations  to  God 
and  man.    To  be  true  Christians,  we  are  thus  bound  to  Him ;  but 

we  are  not  bound  to  anything  else "We  are  not  bound 

to  any  man's  or  any  Church's  rendering  of  what  he  is  or  has  done. 
We  are  not  bound  to  any  Christology  or  io  any  doctrine  of  the  ivorJc 
of  Christ. "'^'^^  "The  thoughts  of  the  apostles  whose  minds  were 
first  powerfully  stimulated  by  their  faith  in  Christ,  will  always  be  a 
help,  and  the  supreme  help,  to  Christian  thought :  in  some  sense  they 
will  always  be  a  standard  for  Christian  thinking :  but  they  help  us 
by  inspiring  in  us  an  intellectual  interest  in  the  gospel  answering 
to  their  own,  not  by  imposing  their  thought  authoritatively  upon  us 
as  a  law  to  our  faith.  "^°^  In  such  expressions  as  these  the  last 
shred  of  recognition  of  an  external  authority  of  Scripture,  and  the 
last  claim  for  a  definite  quantum  of  delivered  doctrine  seem  to  have 
disappeared.  Even  more  positive  expressions  of  the  relative  and 
changing  nature  of  doctrinal  conceptions  are  found  as,  for  example, 
"The  questions  raised  by  the  Christian  attitude  to  Jesus,  and  the 
Christian's  sense  of  debt  to  Him,  may  have  to  be  asked  over  and 
over,  taking  always  a  wider  range,  penetrating  always  more  deeply 
into  the  wonder  of  what  he  is  and  does ;  and  with  the  widening  and 
deepening  of  the  questions,  the  answers  too  must  vary  in  form     .     . 

.     .     .     They  are  always  subject  to  revision If  we 

look  to  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament  age,  we  shall  find  that  this 

""Jesus  and  The  Gospels,  p.  90. 

^■^  Ibid,  p.  337. 

""  Ibid,  p.  360.    Vide  quotation  from  Warfield  p.  9  of  this  treatise. 


68  THE   NORMATIVE   USE  OP   SCRIPTURE 

is  essentially  the  situation  in  which  it  confronts  us 

though  there  is  one  faith,  there  is  not  one  Christology,  "^^^  jjg 
might  have  said  also,  for  it  is  involved  in  his  position — 'though 
there  is  one  sense  of  obligation  to  Jesus  Christ,  there  is  not  one 
Soteriology'. 

We  may  conclude  this  part  of  the  discussion  by  referring  to  a 
theologian  who  represents  a  somewhat  peculiar  and  catholic  attitude 
toward  all  theology  and  to  the  use  of  Scripture  therein.  According 
to  the  late  Professor  C.  M.  Mead  the  Scriptures  possess  a  regulative 
authority,  indeed,  but  not  one  that  is  self-executing.  The  Christian 
judgment  must  arbitrate  between  different  and  apparently  opposing 
representations  of  the  various  parts  of  Scripture,  and  various 
writers.  Interpretation  should  be  harmonistic,  not  in  the  sense  of 
the  older  theology  which  by  the  use  of  the  "analogy  of  faith" 
tended  to  obscure  or  ignore  the  differences,  but  in  the  sense  of 
recognizing  that  apparently  opposing  views  are  simply  different 
sides  or  angles  of  one  truth,  or  are  complementary  to  each  other  in 
the  full  comprehension  of  truth.  He  states  as  the  purpose  of  his 
"Irenic  Theology"  the  "illustration  of  the  fact  that  antithetic  and 
even  apparently  irreconcilable  religious  conceptions  are  often  to  be 
regarded,  not  as  mutually  exclusive,  but  rather  as  needing  to  be 
combined  in  order  to  express  the  fullness  of  the  body  of  truth  that  is 
to  be  found  in  the  oracles  of  God  and  in  the  Christian  life."^°'' 
He  expresses  doubt  of  the  possibility  of  Systematic  Theology  in  the 
sense  that  Hodge,  or  Strong  maintain.  Accordingly,  he  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  great  historical  theological  antitheses,  paralleling  the 
philosophic  ones — shows  how  these  all  have  their  foundation  in 
Scripture  representations,  and  seeks  for  more  adequate  statements 
that  shall  live  together  on  more  friendly  terms. 

The  significance  of  Mead  for  the  purposes  of  this  inquiry  is 
found  in  his  claim  that  none  of  the  great  theological  systems  are  in 
themselves  biblical  since  the  Bible  contains  with  equal  clearness  the 
material  contents  of  them  all.  But  if  he  is  asked  why  he  feels 
obligated  to  maintain  the  antitheses,  his  answer  is  two-fold,  (a) 
Revelation,  of  which  the  Bible  is  the  authoritative  record,  is  divine, 
hence  a  unity  and  ultimately  harmonious,  (b)  Meantime,  ethical 
and  religious  needs  demand  both  sides  equally.^^"     In  other  words, 

^'^  Op.  cit.,  p.  348.     Cf.  also  for  similar  statements  pp.  349,  350,  359. 
***  Irenic  Theology,  p.  iii. 
""  Op.  cit.,  p.  136. 


THE   THEOLOGICAL    USE   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE  69 

theoretical  reconcilement  is  ultimately  possible  but  is  indefinitely 
deferred:  moral  and  religious  adjustment  are,  meantime,  experi- 
mental fact. 

The  obvious  objection  to  this  attitude  toward  Scripture  is  that 
it  does  not  take  into  account  its  literary  character  as  humanly  con- 
ditioned. He  places  all  Scripture  upon  the  same  plane,  failing  to 
distinguish  between  the  religious  teaching  which  is  the  result  of 
positive  Christian  experience,  and  those  other  representations  due 
to  apologetic  necessities.  This  distinction  is  especially  evident  in 
relation  to  the  supposed  antithesis  between  Divine  Sovereignty  and 
Human  Freedom  in  the  teaching  of  Paul. 


CHAPTER  IV 
SUMMARY  AND  FORECAST 

A  brief  summary  is  here  given  of  the  chief  results  which  appear 
from  the  foregoing  survey.  These  should  be  of  value  in  estimating 
the  method  of  the  writers  considered,  and  should  afford,  both  neg- 
atively and  positively  some  guidance  in  determining  a  more  ex- 
cellent way. 

1.     In  every  case  some  theory  of  the  Unity  of  Scripture  is  held 
in  such  wise  as  to  exercise  a  dominant  influence  upon  interpreta- 
tion.    This  in  itself  would  not  constitute  ground  for  objection  if 
only  the  theory  were  derived  from  an  adequate  induction  of  cor- 
rectly apprehended  varieties  and  distinctions,  which  the  phenomena 
of  the  Scriptures  actually  present.    But,  plainly  this  is  not  the  case. 
The  Unity  is  regarded  as  in  some  sense  given  in  advance  of  any 
comprehensive  induction  of  particulars,  and  is  used  as  the  organon 
through  which  the  diversity  is  expropriated  from  its  rights.    It  has 
been  pointed  out  how  the  doctrine  of  Revelation  has  influenced  the 
formation  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture.     If  Revelation  has  been  con- 
ceived as  the  supernatural  communication  of  truth  to  the  human 
mind,  it  has  carried  with  it  the  necessary  implication  of  a  doctrinal 
unity  and  completeness,  since  the  deliverances  of  the  one  divine 
mind  must  be  in  accord  with  one  another,  and  God  could  not  be 
conceived  as  stopping  short  of  the  communication  of  all  it  is  need- 
ful man  should  know.     If  Revelation  has  been  thought  of  as  pri- 
marily consisting  in  a  series  of  divine  acts  in  history,  a  unity  is 
likewise  given,  since  God  could  not  be  deemed  to  act  inconsistently  or 
without  plan  and  purpose.     Given  the  purpose  and  the  plan  it  is 
possible  to  articulate  all  the  individual  acts  in  one  coherent  and 
continuous  teleology.     But,  however  Revelation  is  conceived,  the 
Unity  of  Scripture  as  the  record  of  Revelation  is  practically  con- 
stituted by  some  specific  doctrinal  conception  which  furnishes  to 
theology  its  architectonic  principle,  and  serves  as  the  key  to  inter- 
pretation.    It  is  this  that  makes  the  traditional  interpretation  of 
Scripture  dogmatic  and  harmonistic. 

In  the  case  of  Doctor  Hodge  and  that  of  Professor  Warfield  the 
ruling  conception  is  that  of  the  Sovereignty  of  God.  With  Presi- 
dent Strong  it  is  the  Trinity.  Professor  Orr  finds  it  in  the  doctrine 
of  Incarnation.     Professors  Denney  and  Curtis  found  their  the- 


SUMMARY  AND  FORECAST  71 

ology  upon  the  Atonement  as  wrought  in  the  death  of  Christ.  But 
the  very  fact  that  all  these  eminent  theologians  construct  the  Unity 
of  Scripture  from  different  centers  is  in  itself  evidence  either  that 
this  conception  was  not  determined  by  a  scientific  induction  of 
the  Scripture  phenomena,  or  that  the  Scriptures  have  no  such  unity 
as  the  theory  assumes. 

2.  Inasmuch  as  the  Unity  of  Scripture  is  constructed  from 
different  doctrinal  foci,  the  systems  of  theology  resulting  from  in- 
terpretation dominated  by  these  different  determinative  principles 
exhibit  innumerable  points  of  conflict  and  irreconcilable  antagonism. 
Notwithstanding  the  conflicts  of  the  centuries,  none  of  these  view- 
points are  overcome,  and  there  is  little  progress  toward  a  sjoithesis 
of  them.  The  burden  of  Professor  Mead's  "Irenic  Theology"  is  the 
impossibility  of  any  reduction  to  logical  consistency  of  these  op- 
posing systems,  and  the  necessity  of  maintaining  both  sides  of  the 
various  theological  antitheses  as  complements  of  the  full  truth  whose 
logical  consistency  is  not,  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge, 
to  be  apprehended.  This  suggestion,  however,  is  the  practical 
abandonment  of  the  theory  of  the  Unity  of  Scripture  presupposed 
in  their  character  as  the  record  of  a  divine  Revelation,  and  has  met 
with  little  favor.  Meantime,  however,  the  obligation  rests  heavily 
upon  those  who  maintain  the  theory  to  support  it.  They  have  been 
constant  in  their  demand  that  the  critical  school  of  Bible  students 
exhibit  agreement  in  their  results,  and,  given  sufficient  time,  the 
demand  is,  within  reasonable  limits,  a  just  one.  But  there  is  even 
more  justice  in  the  demand  that  the  schools  representing  the  older 
vie^^-point  shall  agree  in  their  results.  For,  upon  the  view  that  the 
Scriptures  are  a  supernaturally  constituted  unitj^  for  the  express 
purpose  of  mediating  a  supernatural  revelation  vitally  related  to 
human  salvation  there  is  created  a  presumption  of  clearness  and 
consistency  not  created  in  an  equal  degree  by  any  other  pre- 
supposition. If  the  diverse  results  of  the  different  traditional 
schools  of  theology  be  taken  as  legitimately  derived  from  the 
Scriptures,  as  Mead  allows,  then  the  doctrinal  unity  which,  by 
hypothesis,  exists,  does  not  exist  and  a  truly  Biblical  theology  could 
not  possibly  have  logical  consistency  and  unity  as  its  ideal.  This 
result,  moreover,  is  actually  attained  and  acquiesced  in  by  the 
greatest  masters  of  Biblical  theology  in  our  times.  There  is  no 
theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no 


72  THE  NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

theology  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole.  All  the  unity  that  exists  either  in 
the  two  parts  or  in  the  whole  is  a  practical  religious  unity  not 
reducible  to  logical  expression. 

3.  Another  important  result  springing  from  the  preconception 
of  the  doctrinal  unity  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  record  of  a  complete 
revelation,  is  the  constant  ignoring,  upon  the  part  of  those  who 
hold  the  view,  of  the  larger  historical  relations  under  which  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel,  and,  later  on,  Christianity  developed.  This  is 
especially  seen  in  the  all  but  total  neglect  of  the  influence  of  contem- 
porary Judaism  upon  the  development  of  thought  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  explanation  of  such  an  attitude  is  not  difficult.  It  arises 
from  the  assumed  close  connection  that  exists  between  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New  as  the  exclusive  vehicles  of  revelation,  into 
which  if  any  ideas  were  allowed  to  come  from  the  intervening  non- 
biblical  history,  it  would  seem  like  an  incursion  from  an  alien  realm. 
In  other  words,  the  theory  of  biblical  unity  we  have  been  consider- 
ing, assumes  a  hiatus  between  the  revelation  period  covered  by  the 
Old  Testament  literature  and  that  covered  by  the  New.  These  were 
''the  centuries  of  silence."  But,  in  thus  cutting  off  the  literature 
and  life  of  the  early  Christian  community  from  its  living  con- 
nections, the  real  and  vital  unity  of  history  is  sacrificed  for  one 
unreal  and  abstract. 

4.  The  result,  however,  which  testifies  most  forcefully  to  the 
religious  inadequacy  of  the  position  under  review  is  the  unanimous 
refusal  of  these  theologians  to  make  the  dominant  concepts  of  Jesus 
controlling  in  their  theological  construction.  Surely  the  ideas  which 
Jesus  found  most  serviceable  in  expressing  the  heart  of  the  revela- 
tion of  which  he  was  the  mediator,  ought  to  be  kept  in  the  central 
place  in  all  subsequent  reflection  upon  that  revelation.  Otherwise 
how  is  one  to  test  subsequent  reflection  as  Christian  ?  If  an  infer- 
ence were  drawn  from  the  practice  of  our  group  of  theologians,  as 
regards  this  point,  it  would  be  that  in  their  view  the  primary  truths 
of  Christian  instruction  cannot  be  the  primary  or  ruling  truths  in 
theological  construction.  It  would  follow  that  Jesus  was  not  the 
first  and  most  authoritative  teacher  of  essential  Christian  truth.  He 
was  not  the  preacher  of  a  full  gospel  of  salvation.  To  this  position, 
indeed,  some  of  our  theologians  seem  actually  to  come.  In  at  least 
two  instances^  the  words  of  Doctor  Dale  are  quoted  (rather  inac- 

^  Strong,  Syst.  Theol.,  II,  721.     Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  p.  120. 


SUMMARY  AND  FORECAST  73 

curat ely  to  be  sure)  to  the  effect  that  "Jesus  came  not  to  preach  the 
gospel  but  that  there  might  be  a  gospel  to  preach."-  And  yet 
Professor  Denney  has  assured  us  that  the  ' '  gospels  have  every  qual- 
ity they  need  to  put  us  in  contact  with  the  gospel."^  Professor  Orr 
in  like  vein  has  written  "In  Christ's  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  are  embodied  all  the  great  truths  of  His  revelation.  Here 
most  clearly  is  it  seen  that  the  truth  he  reveals  is  of  a  kind  that,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  can  never  become  obsolete."*  Wliy,  in  view 
of  such  expressions,  are  these  great  conceptions  of  Jesus  passed  over 
for  others  that  can  be  related  to  Jesus  mind  only  by  more  or  less 
likely  inferences?  Evidently  because  of  the  traditional  dogmatic 
heritage.  By  means  of  Jesus'  conceptions  of  God  as  Father  and 
the  Kingdom  of  God  as  the  reign  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men,  the 
Greek  and  Latin  theology  could  not  be  read  into  the  Scriptures.  If 
primary  stress  be  laid  upon  these  great  principles  of  Jesus,  the  old 
theology  cannot  live  in  its  traditional  forms.  Professor  G.  B. 
Stevens  complains  that  the  older  theologies  in  their  treatment  of  the 
death  of  Jesus  Christ  have  claimed  in  it  a  satisfaction  to  the  ethical 
nature  of  God  without  deriving  the  conception  of  God's  ethical 
nature  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus.^ 

5.  Finally,  do  we  not  discern  by  comparing  the  positions  of 
our  several  theologians  a  steady  drift  in  one  certain  direction,  and 
may  we  not  even  now  forecast  the  probable  relation  Scripture  will 
have  toward  the  theology  of  the  future  ?  In  the  thought  of  Doctor 
Hodge  the  Scriptures  constitute  a  wholly  objective  and  authoritative 
standard  by  which  theology  is  ruled  absolutely.  Reason  and  re- 
ligious experience  are  carefully  excluded  from  any  voice  in  matters 
of  faith.*'  Yet,  even  Doctor  Hodge  has  a  place  of  attachment  for  the 
subjective  test  of  revelation,  since  he  includes  among  the  reasons 
for  believing  in  the  Bible  as  a  divine  revelation  the  "adaptation  of 
its  truths  to  our  souls.  "^  A  decisive  step  away  from  the  external 
authority  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole  is  seen  in  President  Strong's 

*  Dale,  The  Atonement,  p.  46.  "The  real  truth  is  that  while  he  came  to 
preach  the  gospel  his  chief  object  in  coming  was  that  there  might  be  a  gospel 
to  preach." 

'  Supra,  p.  17. 

*  Revelation  and  Inspiration,  p.  144  f. 
» The  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  p.  412. 

°  Systematic  Theol.,  I,  p.  11. 
^  Supra,  p.  23. 


74  THE   NORMATIVE   USE  OF   SCRIPTURE 

change  from  a  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  Scripture  to  one  of 
their  religious  sufficiency.^  A  great  gulf  lies  between  the  meanings 
of  the  two  words  as  he  employs  them.  The  one  suggests  the  impo- 
sition of  authority  from  without;  the  other  the  influence  of  truth 
from  within.  Still  another  step  in  the  same  general  direction  is 
Professor  Orr's  denial  of  the  necessity  of  proving  the  Bible  to  be 
God's  word,  before  he  can  speak  of  its  gospel.  "A  book  which  con- 
tains such  a  gospel  needs  no  external  attestation  that  God  speaks 
through  it  with  authority  to  men."^  Here  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  is  based  in  its  appeal  to  the  soul  with  moral  and  spiritual 
power.  Though  Professor  Orr  uses  the  word  infallibility,  it  is  not 
with  the  old  meaning.  He  subordinates  it  strictly  to  the  practical 
religious  interest.  The  Bible  is  said  to  be  "  an  infallible  guide  in  the 
great  matters  for  which  it  was  given,"  viz.,  the  knowledge  of  the 
will  of  God  for  salvation  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  instruction  in  the  way 
of  holiness.  His  position  is  practically  the  same  as  that  of  Presi- 
dent Strong.^" 

Finally,  in  the  present  positions  of  Professor  Denney  w^e  have 
seen  how  the  formal  doctrinal  authority  of  the  Scriptures  disap- 
pears altogether,  and  how  the  teaching  it  contains,  even  the  thought 
of  the  apostles  does  not  dominate  us  but  rather  helps  us  "by  in- 
spiring intellectual  interest  in  the  gospel.  "^^  "  Once  the  mind  has 
come  to  know  itself,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  for  it  as  blank 
authority.     It  cannot  believe  things — the  things  by  which  it  has  to 

live — simply  on  the  word  of  Paul  or  John Truth,  in 

short,  is  the  only  thing  which  has  authority  for  the  mind,  and  the 
only  way  in  which  truth  finally  evinces  its  authority  is  by  taking 
possession  of  the  mind  for  itself. '  '^- 

Wliat,  now,  is  the  conclusion  toward  which  all  these  expressions 
tend?  Is  it  not  that  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  lie  in  their 
value  as  grasped  by  religious  experience?  Inspired  Scripture  is 
{"imply  valuable  Scripture — a  view  that  seems  in  remarkable  accord 
with  the  classic  text  2  Timothy  3  :16.  Every  Scripture  inspired  of 
God   (or  God-breathing)   is  also  profitable   (dxpeXifjLO?,  useful,  ser- 

*  Supra,  p.  26. 

*  Rev.  and  Insp.,  p.  20. 
"Ibid,  p.  217. 

"  Supra,  p.  79. 

"Atonement  and  the  Modern  Mind,  pp.  7,  8. 


SUMMARY  AND  FORECAST  75 

viceable).  Scripture  is  simply  the  literary  reflex  of  experience.  It 
proves  its  exceptional  value,  in  so  far  as  it  has  such,  by  the  manner 
in  which  it  helps  us  to  interpret  our  experience  and  so  enriches  it 
for  us.  It  proves  its  inspiration  by  inspiring.  It  exhibits  its  vi- 
tality by  generating,  or  stimulating  life  outreaching  the  formal 
expression  of  the  life  from  which  it  arose.  The  function  of  the 
Scriptures,  therefore,  in  the  theology  of  the  future  will  be  their 
effectiveness  in  stimulating  interest  in  the  great  religious  verities 
from  which  they  themselves  arose,  and  in  thus  maintaining  that 
moral  and  spiritual  vitality  necessary  to  the  connection  of  our  own 
experience  with  those  same  verities.  It  is  the  universal  testimony  of 
those  who  specially  cultivate  biblical  studies  according  to  the  ideals 
of  modern  Christian  scholarship,  that  the  Scriptures  are  thereby 
tremendously  enhanced  in  intellectual  interest  and  in  their  power 
of  religious  appeal.  So  far,  therefore,  from  losing  their  value  and 
function  in  theology,  they  will  for  the  first  time  really  come  to 
exercise  their  rightful  authority.  Only,  this  authority  will  be  vital 
and  functional,  rather  than  formal.  In  truth,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
Scriptures  as  a  whole  have  not  had,  nor  can  they  have  even  a  formal 
authority.  That  formal  authority  which  has  been  accorded  to  the 
Bible  has  been  a  mere  semblance.  Philosophical,  and  political  con- 
cepts derived  from  extra-biblical  sources  have  been  superimposed 
upon  the  Bible  and  have  been  used  to  enucleate  therefrom  those 
materials  in  seeming  subservience  to  these  concepts.  Other  ma- 
terials, far  richer  in  religious  content  and  more  vital  in  Christian 
experience  were  either  overlooked,  or  were  violently  wrested  from 
their  natural  import  to  a  fictitious  agreement  with  those  other 
theologically  normative  ideas.  Furthermore,  it  is  now  evident  that 
Scripture  can  not  have  formal  authority  for  theology,  because  of 
the  large  variety  of  its  representations.  But  Scripture  is  pervaded 
by  one  continuous  and  increasing  ethical  and  spiritual  life  which 
comes  to  full  expression  in  Jesus  Christ  and  through  faith  by  the 
Spirit  dwells  in  Christian  hearts.  In  giving  to  us  the  Christ,  and 
Life  in  Him,  the  Scriptures  after  all  give  to  us  the  only  norm 
our  theology  needs  or  can  have. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Hodge,  Doctor  Charles. 

Systematic  Theology,  3  Volumes.     New  York,  1887, 
Strong,  President  Augustus  H. 

Systematic   Theology,  3  Volumes.     Philadelphia,   1907-9. 

Christ  in  Creation  and  Ethical  Monism.     Philadelphia,  1899. 
Warfield,  Professor   Benjamin   B. 

The  Right  of  Systematic  Theology.     Edinburgh,  1897. 

The  Significance  of  the  Westminster  Standards.     New  York,  1898. 

The  Lord  of  Glory.     New  York,   1907. 
Orr,  Professor  James. 

Revelation  and   Inspiration.     New  York,   1910. 

The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World.     New  York,  1893. 

The  Progress  of  Dogma.     New  York,  1901. 

The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament.     New  York,  1906, 
Denney,   Professor  James, 

Studies    in    Theology.      New    York,    1895. 

The  Death  of  Christ.     New  York,  1902. 

The  Atonement  and  the  Modern  Mind.     London,  1910. 

Jesus  and  the  Gospels.     New  York,  1909. 
Curtis,  Professor  Olin, 

The  Christian  Faith,     New  York,  1905, 
Mead,  Professor  Charles  M. 

Irenic  Theology.     New  York,  1905. 

Supernatural  Revelation,     New  York,  1889, 
Ladd,  George  T. 

The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture,  2  Volumes.     New  York,  1883. 
Burton,  Ernest  De  Witt ;  Smith,  John  Merlin  Powis  and  Smith,  Gerald  Birney, 

Biblical  Ideas  of  Atonement;  their  History  and  Significance,    Chicago,  1909, 
Smith,  Gerald  Birney, 

The  Test  of  Inspiration,  Article  Biblical  World,  Vol.  36,  pp,  152  ff. 
Gilbert,  George   Holley, 

Interpretation  of  the  Bible.     New  York,  1908. 
Clarke,  William  Newton. 

The  Use  of  the  Scriptures  in  Theology,     New  York,  1906. 

Sixty  Years  with  the  Bible.     New  York,  1910. 
Dods,  Marcus. 

The  Bible;  Its  Origin  and  Nature.     New  York,  1905. 
Weiss,  Bernard, 

The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  2  Volumes,     Edinburgh,  1888, 

The  Religion  of  the  New  Testament,  Eng,  Tr,  New  York,  1905, 
Scott,   Ernest   F. 

The  Fourth  Gospel,  its  Purpose  and  Theology.     Edinburgh,  1906. 

The  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah.     Edinburgh,  1911. 

The  Apologetic  of  the  New  Testament.     New  York,  1907. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  77 

Tennant,  F. 

The  Sources  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Fall  and  Original  Sin.    Cambridge,  1903. 
Wrede,  Wilhelm. 

tJber  Aufgabe  und  Methode  der  sogennanten  Neutestamentlichen  Theologie. 
Gottingen,  1897. 
Montefiore,  Claude  H. 

The  Religious  Teaching  of  Jesus.     London,  1910. 
McFadyen,  John  Edgar. 

Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church.     New  York,  1906. 
Evans,  Llewelyn  J.  and  Smith,  Henry  P. 

Biblical   Scholarship   and   Inspiration.     Cinn.,   1891. 
Immer,  A. 

Hermeneutics  of  the  New  Testament.     Andover,  1890, 
Schultz,   Hermann. 

Old  Testament  Theology,  Eng.  Tr.,  2  volumes.    Edinburgh,  1892,  1895. 


>    ,  • ,     •  .  • 

,  >    .    •  •     • 


'■m 


J  vj  W  V  ^'    -J 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


